Tree Genetics & Genomes

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 37–51 | Cite as

Efficiency of genomic selection with models including dominance effect in the context of Eucalyptus breeding

  • Marie Denis
  • Jean-Marc Bouvet
Original Paper


We developed a simulation study to test the efficiency of genomic selection (GS) in the case of Eucalyptus breeding. We simulated a recurrent selection scheme for clone production over four breeding cycles. Scenarios crossing broad sense heritabilities (H 2 = 0.6 and 0.1) and dominance to additive variance ratios (R = 0.1; 0.5; and 1) were compared. GS was performed with 1,000 SNPs and 22 QTLs per Morgan and tested against phenotypic selection (PS) based on best linear unbiased prediction of parents and clones. When the training population was made up of the first cycle progeny tests and the candidate populations were the progeny tests of three successive cycles, GS accuracy decreased with breeding cycles (e.g., from 0.9 to 0.4 with H 2 = 0.6 and R = 0.1), whereas PS presented constant performances (accuracy of 0.8 with H 2 = 0.6 and R = 0.1). When the training population set was updated by associating data of previous cycles, GS accuracy was improved from 25 % to 418 %, especially with H 2 = 0.1. The GS model including dominance effects performed better in clone selection (genotypic value) when dominance effects were preponderant (R = 1), heritability was high (H 2 = 0.6 and with an updated training set), but no improvement was detected for parent selection (breeding value). The genetic gains over cycles were lower with the GS method without updating the data set but, with an updated training set, were similar to PS. However, the genetic gain per unit time with GS was 1.5 to 3 times higher than with PS for breeding and clone populations. These results highlight the value of GS in Eucalyptus breeding.


Genomic selection BLUP Eucalyptus Dominance variance Additive variance Selection accuracy Genetic gain 



This study was one of the tasks of CIRAD's project SEPANG (genomic selection in tropical plants) funded by the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement. We are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments which greatly improved this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11295_2012_528_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (67 kb)
Fig. S1 abc Change in selection method accuracy over cycles for breeding population with updating of the training set: influence of heritability (H 2 = 0.6 and H 2 = 0.1) and dominance to additive variance R ratio (R = 0.1, R = 0.5 and R = 1). For GS, the training population is constituted of the individuals of the cycle 1 progeny tests to predict the candidate populations of subsequent cycles. (PPTX 66 kb)
11295_2012_528_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (67 kb)
Fig. S1 def (PPTX 66 kb)
11295_2012_528_MOESM3_ESM.pptx (67 kb)
Fig. S2 abc Change in selection method accuracy over cycles for breeding population with updating of the training set: influence of heritability (H 2 = 0.6 and H 2 = 0.1) and dominance to additive variance R ratio (R = 0.1, R = 0.5 and R = 1). For GS, the training population is constituted of individuals of the cycle 1 progeny tests to predict the candidate populations of subsequent cycles. (PPTX 66 kb)
11295_2012_528_MOESM4_ESM.pptx (67 kb)
Fig. S2 def (PPTX 66 kb)
11295_2012_528_MOESM5_ESM.docx (21 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 21 kb)


  1. Arumugasundaram S, Ghosh M, Veerasamy S, Ramasamy Y (2011) Species discrimination, population structure and linkage disequilibrium in Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Eucalyptus tereticornis using SSR markers. PLoS One 6:e28252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardo R (2008) Molecular markers and selection for complex traits in plants: learning from the last 20 years. Crop Sci 48:1649–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernardo R, Yu J (2007) Prospects for genome wide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci 47:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouvet J-M, Vigneron P, Saya AR, Gouma R (2004) Early selection of Eucalyptus clones in retrospective nursery test using growth, morphological and dry matter criteria, in Republic of Congo. South Hemisphere For J 200:5–17Google Scholar
  5. Bouvet J-M, Vigneron P, Villar E, Saya A (2009a) Determining the optimal age for selection by modelling the age-related trends in genetic parameters in Eucalyptus hybrid populations. Silvae Genet 58:102–112Google Scholar
  6. Bouvet J-M, Saya A, Vigneron P (2009b) Trends in additive, dominance and environmental effects with age for growth traits in Eucalyptus hybrid populations. Euphytica 165:35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bush D (2011) Plantation eucalypt species: recent trends in testing and planting. Proceedings of the IUFRO meeting: “Joining silvicultural and genetic strategies to minimize eucalyptus environmental stresses: from research to practices” 14–18th of November 2011. Porto-Seguro Brazil pp 4–6Google Scholar
  8. Calus MPL, Veerkamp RF (2007) Accuracy of breeding values when using and ignoring the polygenic effect in genomic breeding value estimation with a marker density of one SNP per cM. J Anim Breed Genet 124:362–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calus MPL, Meuwissen THE, de Roos APW, Veerkamp RF (2008) Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes. Genetics 178:553–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cleveland MA, Forni S, Deeb N, Maltecca C (2010) Genomic breeding value prediction using three Bayesian methods and application to reduced density marker panels. BMC Proc 4(Suppl 1):S6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coster A, Bastiaansen J (2009) Haplosim: Haplosim R package version 1.8Google Scholar
  12. Coster A, Bastiaansen JWM, Calus MPL, Maliepaard C, Bink MCAM (2010) Qtlmas 2009: simulated dataset. BMC Proc 4(Suppl 1):S3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crossa J, De los Campos G, Pérez P, Gianola D, Atlin G, Burgueño J, Araus JL, Makumbi D, Yan J, Arief V, Banziger M, Braun HJ (2010) Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics 186:713–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA (2010) The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185:1021–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davey JW, Hohenlohe PA, Etter PD, Boone JQ, Catchen JM, Blaxter ML (2011) Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing nature reviews. Genetics 12:499–510PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. de los Campos G, Naya H, Gianola D, Crossa J, Legarra A et al (2009) Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigrees. Genetics 182:375–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  18. Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, Poland JA, Kawamoto K, Buckler ES, Mitchell SE (2011) A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GbS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS One 6:e19379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Prentice Hall, fourthth edn. Addison Wesley Longman, Harlow, Essex, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallais A (1991) Théorie de la sélection en amélioration des plantes. Editions Masson, ParisGoogle Scholar
  21. Gianola D, Fernando RL, Stella A (2006) Genomic­assisted prediction of genetic value with semiparametric procedures. Genetics 173:1761–1776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gratapaglia D, Resende MDV (2011) Twenty years of Eucalyptus molecular breeding: from discrete marker-trait associations to whole-genome prediction of complex traits. Proceedings of the IUFRO meeting: “joining silvicultural and genetic strategies to minimize eucalyptus environmental stresses: from research to practices” 14–18th of November 2011. Porto-Seguro Brazil pp 33–36Google Scholar
  23. Grattapaglia D, Resende MDV (2010) Genomic selection in forest tree breeding. Tree Genet Gen 7:241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Graziano Usai M, Goddard ME, Hayes BJ (2009) LASSO with cross-validation for genomic selection. Genet Res Camb 91:427–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2007) The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177:2389–2397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartl DL, Clark AG (2007) Principles of population genetics, fourthth edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayes B, Goddard M (2010) Genome-wide association and genomic selection in animal breeding. Genome 53:876–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME (2009a) Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 92:433–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayes BJ, Visscher PM, Goddard ME (2009b) Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genet Res Camb 91:47–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heffner EL, Sorrells ME, Jannink J-L (2009) Genomic selection for crop improvement. Crop Sci 49:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heffner EL, Lorenz AJ, Jannink J-L, Sorrells ME (2010) Plant breeding with genomic selection: gain per unit time and cost. Crop Sci 50:1681–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hein PRG, Bouvet J-M, Mandrou E, Clair B, Vigneron P, Chaix (2012) Age trends of microfibril angle inheritance and their genetic and environmental correlations with growth, density and chemical properties in Eucalyptus urophylla S.T. Blake wood. Annals For Sci. doi: 10.1007/s13595-012-0186-3
  33. Hill WG, Robertson A (1968) Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations. Theor Appl Genet 38:226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoer A, Kennard R (1970) Ridge regression: biased estimation for non-orthogonal problems. Technometrics 12:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ibánẽz-Escriche N, Fernando RL, Ali T, Dekkers JCM (2009) Genomic selection of purebreds for crossbred performance. Genet Sel Evol 41:12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iwata H, Hayashi T, Tsumura Y (2011) Prospects for genomic selection in conifer breeding: a simulation study of Cryptomeria japonica. Tree Genet Gen 7:747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jannink JL (2010) Dynamics of long-term genomic selection. Genet Sel Evol: 42-35Google Scholar
  38. Jannink JL, Lorenz AJ, Iwata H (2010) Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Brief Funct Genomics Proteomics 9:166–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kumar S, Bink MCAM, Volz RK, Bus VGM, Chagné D (2012) Towards genomic selection in apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) breeding programmes: prospects, challenges and strategies. Tree Genet Gen 8:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lorenz AJ, Chao S, Asoro FG, Heffner EL, Hayashi T, Iwata H, Smith KP, Sorrells ME, Jannink J-L (2011) Genomic selection in plant breeding: knowledge and prospects. In: Sparks D (ed) Advances in Agronomy, vol 110. Elsevier Inc, Newark, pp 78–110Google Scholar
  41. Lorenzana R, Bernardo R (2009) Accuracy of genotypic value predictions for marker-based selection in biparental plant populations. Theor Appl Genet 120:151–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Luan T, Woolliams JA, Lien S, Kent M, SvendenM MTHE (2009) The accuracy of genomic selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation. Genetics 183:1119–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Meuwissen THE (2009) Accuracy of breeding values of ‘unrelated’ individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping. Genet Sel Evol 41:35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meuwissen THE, Goddard M (2010) Accurate prediction of genetic values for complex traits by whole genome resequencing. Genetics 185:623–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Mrode RA, Thompson R (2005) Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values, 2nd edn. CABI Publishing, Cambridge USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muir WM (2007) Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. J Anim Breed Genet 124:342–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ødegård J, Yazdi MH, Sonesson AK, Meuwissen THE (2009) Incorporating desirable genetic characteristics from an inferior into a superior population using genomic selection. Genetics 181:737–745PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Park T, Casella G (2008) The bayesian lasso. J Am Stat Assoc 103:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pérez P, de Los CG, Crossa J, Gianola D (2010) Genomic-enabled prediction based on molecular markers and pedigree using the Bayesian linear regression package in R. Plant Genome 3(2):106–116PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piepho HP, Möhring J, Melchinger AE, Büchse A (2008) BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Piyasatian N, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2007) Genomic selection for marker-assisted improvement in line crosses. Theor Appl Genet 115:665–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Resende MFRJ, Munoz P, Acosta JJ, Peter GF, Davis JM, Grattapaglia D, Resende MDV, Kirst M (2012a) Accelerating the domestication of trees using genomic selection: accuracy of prediction models across ages and environments. New Phytol 193:617–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Resende MDV, Resende MFR Jr, Sansaloni CP, Petroli CD, Missiaggia AA, Aguiar AM, Abad JM, Takahashi EK, Rosado AM, Faria DA, Pappas GJ Jr, Kilian A, Grattapaglia D (2012b) Genomic selection for growth and wood quality in Eucalyptus: capturing the missing heritability and accelerating breeding for complex traits in forest trees. New Phytol 194:116–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Solberg TR, Sonesson AK, Woolliams JA, Meuwissen THE (2008) Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. J Anim Sci 86:2447–2454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Toosi A, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2010) Genomic selection in admixed and crossbred populations. J Anim Sci 88:32–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Toro M, Varona L (2010) A note on mate allocation for dominance handling in genomic selection. Genet Sel Evol 43:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Verhaegen D, Plomion C (1996) Genetic mapping in Eucalyptus urophylla and Eucalyptus grandis using RAPD markers. Genome 39:1051–1061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vigneron P, Bouvet J-M (2001) Eucalyptus. In: Charrier André (ed.), Jacquot Michel (ed.), Hamon Serge (ed.), Nicolas Dominique (ed.). Tropical plant breeding. (Repères) CIRAD Montpellier: p 223–245Google Scholar
  60. White TL, Adams WT, Neale DB (2007) Forest genetics. CABI Publisher: Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  61. Wong CK, Bernardo R (2008) Genome wide selection in oil palm: increasing selection gain per unit time and cost with small populations. Theor Appl Genet 116:815–824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Xu Y, Crouch JH (2008) Marker-assisted selection in plant breeding: from publications to practice. Crop Sci 48:391–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhong S, Dekkers JCM, Fernando RL, Jannink J-L (2009) Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a barley case study. Genetics 182:355–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIRAD—AGAP Research unit 108 “Genetic improvement and adaptation of tropical and Mediterranean plants”Montpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations