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.
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
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
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
Goeman JJ (2010) L1 penalized estimation in the Cox proportional hazards model. Biom J 52(1):70–84
Gower JC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–874
Haseman JK, Elston RC (1972) The investigation of linkage between a quantitative trait and a marker locus. Behav Genet 2:3–19
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
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
Ritland K (2000) Marker-inferred relatedness as a tool for detecting heritability in nature. Mol Ecol 9:1195–1204
Steiger JH (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull 87:245–251
Struyf A, Hubert M, Rousseeuw PJ (1997) Integrating robust clustering techniques in S-PLUS. Comput Stat Data Anal 26:17–37
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”)
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the NIAB Trust for funding this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2601-2