Skip to main content
Log in

Implications of using genomic prediction within a high-density SNP dataset to predict DUS traits in barley

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Theoretical and Applied Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Key message

Alternative methods for genomic prediction of traits and trait differences are compared and recommendations made. We make recommendations for implementing methods in the context of DUS testing.

Abstract

High-throughput genotyping provides an opportunity to explore the application of genotypes in predicting plant phenotypes. We use a genome-wide prediction model to estimate the contribution of all loci and sum over multiple minor effects to predict traits. A potential use is in plant variety protection to discriminate among varieties on distinctness. We investigate this use with alternate scenarios in a set of 431 winter and spring barley varieties, with trait data from UK DUS trials comprising 28 characteristics, together with SNP genotype data. Firstly, each trait is predicted from genotypes by ridge regression with discrimination among varieties using predicted traits. Secondly, squared trait differences between each pair of varieties are regressed on genetic distances between each variety by ridge regression, with discrimination among varieties using the predicted squared trait differences directly. This latter approach is analogous to the use of phenotype and marker differences introduced to human genetic linkage analysis by Haseman and Elston and to the analysis of heritability in natural populations of plants by Ritland. We compare correlations between methods, both trait by trait and summarised across all traits. Our results show wide variation among correlations for each trait. However, the aggregate distances calculated from values predicted by genotypes show higher correlations with distances calculated from measured values than any previously reported. We discuss the applicability of these results to implementation of UPOV Model 2 in DUS testing and suggest ‘success criteria’ that should be considered by testing authorities seeking to implement UPOV Model 2.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Button P (2008) Situation in UPOV concerning the use of molecular techniques in plant variety protection. Presented at symposium on the application of molecular techniques for plant breeding and in plant variety protection, Seoul, Korea

  • Close TJ et al (2009) Development and implementation of high-throughput SNP genotyping in barley. BMC Genom. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-10-582

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockram J, White J, Zuluaga DL, Smith D, Comadran J, Macaulay M, Luo Z, Kearsey MJ, Werner P, Harrap D (2010) Genome-wide association mapping to candidate polymorphism resolution in the unsequenced barley genome. Natl Acad Sci USA, Proc

    Google Scholar 

  • CPVO-TP/019/3 (2012) Protocol for distinctness, uniformity and stability tests Hordeum vulgare L. sensu lato: barley. Published by Community Plant Variety Office, 3, boulevard Maréchal Foch, FR—49000 ANGERS. http://www.cpvo.europa.eu/main/en/home/technical-examinations/technical-protocols/tp-agricultural-species

  • Feingold E (2002) Regression-based quantitative-trait-locus mapping in the 21st century. Am J Hum Genet 71:217–222

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goeman JJ (2010) L1 penalized estimation in the Cox proportional hazards model. Biom J 52(1):70–84

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gower JC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haseman JK, Elston RC (1972) The investigation of linkage between a quantitative trait and a marker locus. Behav Genet 2:3–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones H, Norris C, Cockram J, Lee D (2013a) Variety protection and plant breeders’ rights in the ‘DNA era’. In: Lübberstedt T, Varshney RK (eds) Diagnostics in plant breeding. Springer, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones H, Norris C, Smith D, Cockram J, Lee D, O’Sullivan DM, Mackay I (2013b) Evaluation of the use of high-density SNP genotyping to implement UPOV Model 2 for DUS testing in barley. Theor Appl Genet 126:901–911

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ritland K (2000) Marker-inferred relatedness as a tool for detecting heritability in nature. Mol Ecol 9:1195–1204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger JH (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull 87:245–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Struyf A, Hubert M, Rousseeuw PJ (1997) Integrating robust clustering techniques in S-PLUS. Comput Stat Data Anal 26:17–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UPOV (1991) International convention for the protection of new varieties of plants: Article 1(vi)

  • UPOV document INF/18/1: Guidelines For DNA-Profiling: Molecular Marker Selection and Database Construction (“BMT Guidelines”)

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the NIAB Trust for funding this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huw Jones.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Communicated by E. A. Carbonell.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 8830 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, H., Mackay, I. Implications of using genomic prediction within a high-density SNP dataset to predict DUS traits in barley. Theor Appl Genet 128, 2461–2470 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2601-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2601-2

Keywords

Navigation