Tree Genetics & Genomes

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 203–212 | Cite as

Inbreeding depression in intra-provenance crosses driven by founder relatedness in white spruce

Original Paper

Abstract

Genetic means for height growth differed between intra- and inter-provenance crosses, which we hypothesized was due partly to unidentified relatedness among intra-provenance base parents resulting in mild inbreeding and inbreeding depression among their offspring. A dense array of 5,844 single nucleotide polymorphisms was used to directly construct a genomic relationship matrix (G) that had four elements ranging from 0.17 to 0.24, between five intra-provenance base parents. Adjusting the numerator relationship matrix for this relatedness among base parents produced inbreeding coefficients of Fi ≈ 0.1 in their offspring, which displayed depressed height growth. Accounting for inbreeding level as a covariate in a mixed model decreased grossly overestimated (up to 2 ×) dominance variance in models without the covariate adjustment. Height growth decreased 39 cm (∼ 6 %) for every 0.1 increase in Fi.

Keywords

Inbreeding Inbreeding depression Relatedness Dominance Genomic relationship matrix 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank D. Plourde and É. Dussault for site maintenance and data collection; S. Blais and F. Gagnon (U. Laval) for managing the genotype data; and K. Gardner, S. Carles, P. Cheers, and the anonymous reviewers for comments on previous versions of the manuscript. This work was made possible by funding from the Natural Resources Canada Genomics R&D Initiative and the Canadian Wood Fibre Centre to JBe and from Genome Québec and Genome Canada to JBo.

Data archiving statement

Data available from the Dryad Digital Repository: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.9m63g

References

  1. Abney M, McPeek MS, Ober C (2000) Estimation of variance components of quantitative traits in inbred populations. Am J Hum Genet 66(2):629–650PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaulieu J (1996) Breeding program and strategy for white spruce in Québec. Information Report LAU-X-117E. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, QuébecGoogle Scholar
  3. Blouin MS (2003) DNA-based methods for pedigree reconstruction and kinship analysis in natural populations. Trends Ecol Evol 18(10):503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyle T (1987) A diallel cross in black spruce. Genome 29(1):180–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burdon RD, Namkoong G (1983) Multiple populations and sublines. Silvae Genet 5–6:221–222Google Scholar
  6. Burdon RD, Russell JH (1998) Inbreeding depression in selfing experiments: statistical issues. For Genet 5(3):179–189Google Scholar
  7. Bush D, Kain D, Matheson C, Kanowski P (2011) Marker-based adjustment of the additive relationship matrix for estimation of genetic parameters—an example using Eucalyptus cladocalyx. Tree Genet Genomes 7(1):23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng R, Abney M, Palmer A, Skol A (2011) QTLRel: an R package for genome-wide association studies in which relatedness is a concern. BMC Genet 12(1):66PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coles JF, Fowler DP (1976) Inbreeding in neighboring trees in two white spruce populations. Silvae Genet 25(1):29–34Google Scholar
  10. de los Campos G, Gianola D, Rosa GJM, Weigel KA, Crossa J (2010) Semi-parametric genomic-enabled prediction of genetic values using reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces methods. Genet Res 92(04):295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doerksen TK, Deslauriers M, Beaulieu J (2011) Ecological and biological information improves inferred paternity in a white spruce breeding orchard. Can J For Res 41:1344–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durel CE, Bertin P, Kremer A (1996) Relationship between inbreeding depression and inbreeding coefficient in maritime pine (Pinus pinaster). Theor Appl Genet 92(3–4):347–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 3rd edn. Longman, Harlow, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  14. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33(2):1–22Google Scholar
  15. Hamrick JL, Godt MJW, Sherman-Broyles SL (1992) Factors influencing levels of genetic diversity in woody plant species. New For 6(1–4):95–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodge GR, Volker PW, Potts BM, Owen JV (1996) A comparison of genetic information from open-pollinated and control-pollinated progeny tests in two eucalypt species. Theor Appl Genet 92(1):53–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jansson G, Li B (2004) Genetic gains of full-sib families from disconnected diallels in loblolly pine. Silvae Genet 53(2):60–64Google Scholar
  18. Jaramillo-Correa JP, Beaulieu J, Bousquet J (2001) Contrasting evolutionary forces driving population structure at expressed sequence tag polymorphisms, allozymes and quantitative traits in white spruce. Mol Ecol 10(11):2729–2740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones AG, Small CM, Paczolt KA, Ratterman NL (2010) A practical guide to methods of parentage analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 10(1):6–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kumar S (2004) Effect of selfing on various economic traits in Pinus radiata and some implications for breeding strategy. For Sci 50(5):571–578Google Scholar
  21. Kumar S, Richardson TE (2005) Inferring relatedness and heritability using molecular markers in radiata pine. Mol Breeding 15(1):55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee SH, Goddard ME, Visscher PM, Van Der Werf JHJ (2010) Using the realized relationship matrix to disentangle confounding factors for the estimation of genetic variance components of complex traits. Genet Sel Evol 42:22PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Legarra A, Aguilar I, Misztal I (2009) A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J Dairy Sci 92(9):4656–4663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindgren D (1975) Use of selfed material in forest tree improvement. Research Notes 15, The Royal College of Forestry. Department of Forest Genetics, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Mäki-Tanila A (2007) An overview on quantitative and genomic tools for utilising dominance genetic variation in improving animal production. Agr Food Sci 16(2):188–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Misztal I (1997) Estimation of variance components with large-scale dominance models. J Dairy Sci 80(5):965–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mrode R (2006) Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. CABI, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Mullin TJ, Park YS (1994) Genetic parameters and age–age correlations in a clonally replicated test of black spruce after 10 years. Can J For Res 24(12):2330–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Namkoong G, Kang H (1990) Quantitative genetics of forest trees. Plant Breed Rev 8:139–188Google Scholar
  31. Namroud MC, Beaulieu J, Juge N, Laroche J, Bousquet J (2008) Scanning the genome for gene single nucleotide polymorphisms involved in adaptive population differentiation in white spruce. Mol Ecol 17(16):3599–3613PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ovaskainen O, Cano JM, Merilä J (2008) A Bayesian framework for comparative quantitative genetics. P R Soc B 275:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Patterson HD, Williams ER (1976) A new class of resolvable incomplete block designs. Biometrika 63(1):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pavy N, Gagnon F, Rigault P, Blais S, Deschênes A, Boyle B, Pelgas B, Deslauriers M, Clément S, Lavigne P, Lamothe M, Cooke JEK, Jaramillo-Correa JP, Beaulieu J, Isabel N, MacKay J, Bousquet J (2013) Development of high-density SNP genotyping arrays for white spruce (Picea glauca) and transferability to subtropical and nordic congeners. Mol Ecol Resour 13:324–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pemberton J (2004) Measuring inbreeding depression in the wild: the old ways are the best. Trends Ecol Evol 19(12):613–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Piepho HP (2009) Ridge regression and extensions for genomewide selection in maize. Crop Sci 49(4):1165–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plummer M, Best N, Cowles K, Vines K (2006) CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 6(1):7–11Google Scholar
  38. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  39. Ritland K (1996) Inferring the genetic basis of inbreeding depression in plants. Genome 39(1):1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santure AW, Stapley J, Ball AD, Birkhead TR, Burke T, Slate J (2010) On the use of large marker panels to estimate inbreeding and relatedness: empirical and simulation studies of a pedigreed zebra finch population typed at 771 SNPs. Mol Ecol 19(7):1439–1451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shaw RG, Byers DL, Shaw FH (1998) Genetic components of variation in Nemophila menziesii undergoing inbreeding: morphology and flowering time. Genetics 150(4):1649–1661PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sillanpää MJ (2011) On statistical methods for estimating heritability in wild populations. Mol Ecol 20:1324–1332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B 64(4):583–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Su G, Christensen OF, Ostersen T, Henryon M, Lund MS (2012) Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and predicting genetic merits using genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers. PLoS ONE 7(9):e45293PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. VanRaden P (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 91(11):4414–4423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Waldmann P, Hallander J, Hoti F, Sillanpää MJ (2008) Efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo implementation of Bayesian analysis of additive and dominance genetic variances in noninbred pedigrees. Genetics 179(2):1101–1112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walsh B (2005) The struggle to exploit non-additive variation. Aust J Agr Res 56(9):873–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang T, Hagqvist R, Tigerstedt PMA (1999) Inbreeding depression in three generations of selfed families of silver birch (Betula pendula). Can J For Res 29(6): 662–668Google Scholar
  49. White TL, Hodge GR (1989) Predicting breeding values with applications in forest tree improvement. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams CG, Savolainen O (1996) Inbreeding depression in conifers: implications for breeding strategy. For Sci 42(1):102–117Google Scholar
  51. Wu HX, Matheson AC, Spencer D (1998) Inbreeding in Pinus radiata. I. The effect of inbreeding on growth, survival and variance. Theor Appl Genet 97(8):1256–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wu HX, Matheson AC, Abarquez A (2002) Inbreeding in Pinus radiata. IV: the effect of inbreeding on wood density. Ann For Sci 59(5–6):557–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wu HX, Owen JV, Abarquez A, Matheson AC (2004) Inbreeding in Pinus radiata - V. The effects of inbreeding on fecundity. Silvae Genet 53(2):80–87Google Scholar
  54. Yanchuk AD (1996) General and specific combining ability from disconnected partial diallels of coastal Douglas-fir. Silvae Genet 45(1):37–45Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest ServiceCanadian Wood Fibre CentreQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Canada Research Chair in Forest and Environmental Genomics, Institute for Systems and Integrative BiologyUniversité LavalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations