Advertisement

New Forests

, Volume 43, Issue 5–6, pp 631–637 | Cite as

Breeding without breeding: selection using the genomic best linear unbiased predictor method (GBLUP)

  • Yousry A. El-Kassaby
  • Jaroslav Klápště
  • Robert D. Guy
Article

Abstract

We demonstrate, using height data from a clonal trial, how the genomic best linear unbiased predictor method (GBLUP) is ideal for determining future breeding potential in situations (either in plantations or wild stands) where high mortality due to biotic or abiotic factors has occurred. The method is effective because it does not require the development of structured pedigree or classical progeny testing, rather it uses DNA fingerprinting to determine the genealogical relationship among individuals. The resulting genetic network is known as the realized relationship matrix, which in turn is used in classical quantitative genetics analyses to determine the genetic worth of all fingerprinted individuals. Selection of desirable individuals among the surviving population is aimed at maximizing genetic diversity even when the original genetic source is unknown. This is accomplished by determining the number of founder genome equivalents which can be used to estimate the inbreeding effective population size. During the selection phase, genetic diversity can be balanced against genetic gain so that diversity is maximized while gain for any particular attribute is optimized.

Keywords

GBLUP Quantitative genetic parameters selection Genetic gain Genetic diversity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Md. Shofiul Azam for height measurements. Funds from The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and Genome BC are highly appreciated.

References

  1. Baltunis BS, Russell JH, Van Niejenhuis A, El-Kassaby YA (2011) Genetic analysis and clonal stability of a yellow cypress clonal population from bulked seedlots using a post hoc reconstructed pedigree. Tree Gen Genomes (in press)Google Scholar
  2. Blouin MS (2003) DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol Evol 18:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caballero A, Toro MA (2000) Interrelations between effective population size and other pedigree tools for the management of conserved populations. Genet Res 75:331–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dekker JCM (2004) Commercial application of marker- and gene assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons. Anim Sci 82((E-Suppl)):E313–E328Google Scholar
  5. Dekker JCM, Hospital F (2002) The use of molecular genetics in improvement of agricultural populations. Nat Rev Genet 3:22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. El-Kassaby YA, Lstibůrek M (2009) Breeding without breeding. Genet Res 91:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El-Kassaby YA, Lstibůrek M, Liewlaksaneeyanawin C, Slavov GT, Howe GT (2006) In: IUFRO Proceedings of low input breeding and genetic conservation of forest tree species. Antalya, Turkey, pp 43–54Google Scholar
  8. El-Kassaby YA, Cappa EP, Liewlaksaneeyanawin C, Klápště J, Lstibůrek M (2011) Breeding without breeding: is a complete pedigree necessary for efficient breeding? PLoS ONE 6(10):e25737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025737 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emik LO, Terrill CE (1949) Systematic procedures for calculating inbreeding coefficients. J Hered 40:51–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher RA (1918) The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans R Soc Edinburgh 52:399–433Google Scholar
  11. Frentiu FD, Clegg SM, Chittock J, Burke T, Blows MW et al (2007) Pedigree-free animal models: the relatedness matrix reloaded. Proc R Soc B 275:639–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Funda T, El-Kassaby YA (2012) Seed Orchards Genetics. CAB Reviews (in press)Google Scholar
  13. Geraldes A, Pang J, Thiessen N, Cezard T, Moore R et al (2011) SNP discovery in black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) by population transcriptome resequencing. Mol Ecol Res 11(Suppl. 1):81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2006) ASReml user guide. Release 2.0 VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Henderson CR (1984) Applications of linear models in animal breeding. U. Guelph, ONGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindgren D, Mullin TJ (1998) Relatedness and status number in seed orchard crops. Can J For Res 28:276–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lynch M, Ritland K (1999) Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. Genetics 152:1753–1766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Massah N, Wang J, Russell JH, van Niejenhuis A, El-Kassaby YA (2010) Genealogical relationship among members of selection and production populations of yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis) in the absence of parental information. J Hered 101:154–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Misztal I, Legarra A, Aguilar I (2009) Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. J Dairy Sci 92:4648–4655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Namkoong G, Kang HC, Brouard JS (1988) Tree breeding: principles and strategies. Theor Appl Genet Monograph 11Google Scholar
  22. Nejati-Javaremi A, Smith C, Gibson J (1997) Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection. J Anim Sci 75:1738–1745PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Oliehoek PA, Windig JJ, van Arendonk JAM, Bijma P (2006) Estimating relatedness between individuals in general populations with a focus on their use in conservation programs. Genetics 173:483–496PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ritland K (1996) A marker-based method for inferences about quantitative inheritance in natural populations. Evolution 50:1062–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanna S, Jackson AU, Nagaraja R, Willer CJ, Chen WM et al (2008) Common variants in the GDF5-UQCC region are associated with variation in human height. Nat Genet 40:198–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Raden PM (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 91:4414–4423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Villanueva B, Pong-Wong R, Fernandez J, Toro MA (2005) Benefits from marker-assisted selection under an additive polygenic model. J Anim Sci 83:1747–1752PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Visscher PM (2008) Sizing up human height variation. Nat Genet 40:489–490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang JL (2002) An estimator for pairwise relatedness using molecular markers. Genetics 160:1203–1215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. White TL, Adams WT, Neale DB (2007) Forest genetics. CABI Publishing, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xie C-Y, Ying CC, Yanchuk AD, Holowachuk DL (2009) Ecotypic mode of regional differentiation due to restricted gene migration: a case in black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) along the Pacific Northwest coast. Can J For Res 39:519–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu Y, Crouch JH (2008) Marker-assisted selection in plant breeding: from publications to practice. Crop Sci 48:391–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yousry A. El-Kassaby
    • 1
  • Jaroslav Klápště
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert D. Guy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Sciences, Faculty of ForestryThe University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Dendrology and Forest Tree Breeding, Faculty of Forestry and Wood SciencesCzech University of Life Sciences in PraguePrague 6Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations