Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 132, Issue 6, pp 1705–1720 | Cite as

High-throughput phenotyping platforms enhance genomic selection for wheat grain yield across populations and cycles in early stage

  • Jin Sun
  • Jesse A. Poland
  • Suchismita Mondal
  • José Crossa
  • Philomin Juliana
  • Ravi P. Singh
  • Jessica E. Rutkoski
  • Jean-Luc Jannink
  • Leonardo Crespo-Herrera
  • Govindan Velu
  • Julio Huerta-Espino
  • Mark E. SorrellsEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) models have been validated for many quantitative traits in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) breeding. However, those models are mostly constrained within the same growing cycle and the extension of GS to the case of across cycles has been a challenge, mainly due to the low predictive accuracy resulting from two factors: reduced genetic relationships between different families and augmented environmental variances between cycles. Using the data collected from diverse field conditions at the International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center, we evaluated GS for grain yield in three elite yield trials across three wheat growing cycles. The objective of this project was to employ the secondary traits, canopy temperature, and green normalized difference vegetation index, which are closely associated with grain yield from high-throughput phenotyping platforms, to improve prediction accuracy for grain yield. The ability to predict grain yield was evaluated reciprocally across three cycles with or without secondary traits. Our results indicate that prediction accuracy increased by an average of 146% for grain yield across cycles with secondary traits. In addition, our results suggest that secondary traits phenotyped during wheat heading and early grain filling stages were optimal for enhancing the prediction accuracy for grain yield.

Abbreviations

BLUPs

Best linear unbiased predictions

CT

Canopy temperature

GS

Genomic selection

HTP

High-throughput phenotyping

GNDVI

Green normalized difference vegetation index

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) “Feed the Future Initiative” (Cooperative Agreement #AID-OAA-A-13-00051) and by participating US and Host Country institutions. We also thank the Delivering Genetic Gain in Wheat project, supported by aid from the U.K. Government’s Department of International Development (DFID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP113319). Partial funding was provided by Hatch project 149-430. This work was also partially supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants 2011-68002-30029 (Triticeae-CAP) and 2017-67007-25939 (Wheat-CAP) from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

122_2019_3309_MOESM1_ESM.docx (234 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 233 kb)

References

  1. Araus JL (2002) Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereals: what should we breed for? Ann Bot 89(7):925–940.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf049 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Araus JL, Cairns JE (2014) Field high-throughput phenotyping: the new crop breeding frontier. Trends Plant Sci 19(1):52–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2013.09.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arruda MP, Lipka AE, Brown PJ, Krill AM, Thurber C, Brown-Guedira G, Dong Y, Foresman BJ, Kolb FL (2016) Comparing genomic selection and marker-assisted selection for Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Mol Breed 36(7):84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-016-0508-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asoro FG, Newell MA, Beavis WD, Scott MP, Jannink JL (2011) Accuracy and training population design for genomic selection on quantitative traits in elite North American oats. Plant Genome J 4(2):132.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2011.02.0007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auinger HJ, Schönleben M, Lehermeier C, Schmidt M, Korzun V, Geiger HH, Piepho HP, Gordillo A, Wilde P, Bauer E, Schön CC (2016) Model training across multiple breeding cycles significantly improves genomic prediction accuracy in rye (Secale cereale L.). Theor App Genet 129(11):2043–2053.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-016-2756-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauriegel E, Giebel A, Geyer M, Schmidt U, Herppich WB (2011) Early detection of Fusarium infection in wheat using hyper-spectral imaging. Comput Electron Agric 75(2):304–312.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2010.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler D, Cullis B, Gilmour A, Gogel B (2009) Mixed models for S language environments: ASReml-R reference manual. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Australia. https://www.vsni.co.uk/downloads/asreml/release3/asreml-R.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2015
  8. Crossa J, Pérez-Rodríguez P, Cuevas J, Montesinos-López O, Jarquín D, de los Campos G, Burgueño J, González-Camacho J, Pérez-Elizalde S, Beyene Y, Dreisigacker S, ingh R, Zhang X, Gowda M, Roorkiwal M, Rukoski J, Varshney RK (2017) Genomic selection in plant breeding: methods, models, and perspectives. Trends Plant Sci 22(11):961–975.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2017.08.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuevas J, Crossa J, Montesinos-López OA, Burgueño J, Pérez-Rodríguez P, de los Campos G (2017) Bayesian genomic prediction with genotype × environment interaction kernel models. G3 Genes Genomes Genet 7(1):41–53Google Scholar
  10. DeGroot BJ, Keown JF, Van Vleck LD, Kachman SD (2007) Estimates of genetic parameters for Holstein cows for test-day yield traits with a random regression cubic spline model. Fac Pap Publ Anim Sci 240. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/animalscifacpub/240. Accessed 28 Feb 2018
  11. Devadas R, Lamb DW, Backhouse D, Simpfendorfer S (2015) Sequential application of hyperspectral indices for delineation of stripe rust infection and nitrogen deficiency in wheat. Precis Agric 16(5):477–491.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-015-9390-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Endelman JB (2011) Ridge regression and other kernels for genomic selec- tion with R package rrBLUP. Plant Genome 4:250–255.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2011.08.0024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endelman JB, Jannink JL (2012) Shrinkage estimation of the realized relationship matrix. G3 Genes Genomes Genet 2:1405–1413.  https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.112.004259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaubitz JC, Casstevens TM, Lu F, Harriman J, Elshire RJ, Sun Q, Buckler ES (2014) TASSEL-GBS: a high capacity genotyping by sequencing analysis pipeline. PLoS One.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090346 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Haghighattalab A, González Pérez L, Mondal S, Singh D, Schinstock D, Rutkoski J, Oritiz-Monasterio I, Singh R, Goodin D, Poland J (2016) Application of unmanned aerial systems for high throughput phenotyping of large wheat breeding nurseries. Plant Methods 12(1):35.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-016-0134-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME (2009) Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 92(2):433–443.  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1646 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Heffner EL, Lorenz AJ, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME (2010) Plant breeding with genomic selection: gain per unit time and cost. Crop Sci 50(5):1681–1690.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2009.11.0662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heffner EL, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME (2011) Genomic selection accuracy using multifamily prediction models in a wheat breeding program. Plant Genome 4(1):65.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2010.12.0029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heslot N, Akdemir D, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL (2014) Integrating environmental covariates and crop modeling into the genomic selection framework to predict genotype by environment interactions. Theor Appl Genet 127(2):463–480.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-013-2231-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffstetter A, Cabrera A, Huang M, Sneller C (2016) Optimizing training population data and validation of genomic selection for economic traits in soft winter wheat. G3 Genes Genomes Genet 6(9):2919–2928.  https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.116.032532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holman FH, Riche AB, Michalski A, Castle M, Wooster MJ, Hawkesford MJ (2016) High throughput field phenotyping of wheat plant height and growth rate in field plot trials using UAV based remote sensing. Remote Sens.  https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8121031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium (IWGSC) (2014) A chromosome-based draft sequence of the hexaploid bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) genome. Science 345(6194):1251788.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251788 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jarquín D, Crossa J, Lacaze X, Du Cheyron P, Daucourt J, Lorgeou J, Piraux F, Guerreiro L, Pérez P, Calus M, Burgueño J, de los Campos G (2014) A reaction norm model for genomic selection using high-dimensional genomic and environmental data. Theor Appl Genet 127(3):595–607.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-013-2243-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jia Y, Jannink JL (2012) Multiple-trait genomic selection methods increase genetic value prediction accuracy. Genetics 192(4):1513–1522.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.144246 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Juliana P, Singh RP, Singh PK, Crossa J, Huerta-Espino J, Lan C, Bhavani S, Rutkoski J, Poland J, Bergstrom G, Sorrells ME (2017) Genomic and pedigree-based prediction for leaf, stem, and stripe rust resistance in wheat. Theor Appl Genet 130(7):1415–1430.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-017-2897-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorenz AJ, Smith KP, Jannink JL (2012) Potential and optimization of genomic selection for Fusarium head blight resistance in six-row barley. Crop Sci 52:1609–1621.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2011.09.0503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manickavelu A, Hattori T, Yamaoka S, Yoshimura K, Kondou Y, Onogi A, Matsui M, Iwata H, Ban T (2017) Genetic nature of elemental contents in wheat grains and its genomic prediction: toward the effective use of wheat landraces from Afghanistan. PLoS One 12(1):e0169416.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169416 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157(4):1819–1829. http://www.genetics.org/content/157/4/1819.abstract
  30. Meyer K (2005) Random regression analyses using B-splines to model growth of Australian Angus cattle. Genet Sel Evol 37:473–500.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-37-6-473 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Michel S, Ametz C, Gungor H, Epure D, Grausgruber H, Löschenberger F, Buerstmayr H (2016) Genomic selection across multiple breeding cycles in applied bread wheat breeding. Theor Appl Genet 129(6):1179–1189.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-016-2694-2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Montesinos-López OA, Montesinos-López A, Crossa J, de los Campos G, Alvarado G, Mondal S, Rutkoski J (2017a) Predicting grain yield using canopy hyperspectral reflectance in wheat breeding data. Plant Methods 13(4):1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-016-0154-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Montesinos-López A, Montesinos-López OA, Cuevas J, Mata-López WA, Burgueño J, Mondal S, Huerta J, Singh R, Autrique E, González-Pérez L, Crossa J (2017b) Genomic Bayesian functional regression models with interactions for predicting wheat grain yield using hyper-spectral image data. Plant Methods 13(1):62.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-017-0212-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Montesinos-López A, Montesinos-López OA, de los Caampos G, Crossa J, Burgueno J, Lune Vazquez J (2018) Bayesian functional regression as an alternative statistical analysis of high-throughput phenotyping data of modern agriculture. Plant Methods 14:46.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-018-0314-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Mrode RA (2005) Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. CABI Publishing, London.  https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990002.0000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Narjesi V, Mardi M, Hervan EM, Azadi A, Naghavi, Ebrahimi M, Zali AA (2015) Analysis of quantitative trait loci (QTL) for grain yield and agronomic traits in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under normal and salt-stress conditions. Plant Mol Biol Rep 33(6):2030–2040.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-015-0876-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ovenden B, Milgate A, Wade LJ, Rebetzke GJ, Holland JB (2018) Accounting for genotype-by-environment interactions and residual genetic variation in genomic selection for water-soluble carbohydrate concentration in wheat. G3 Genes Genomes Genet 8:g3.200038.  https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.118.200038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Poland J, Endelman J, Dawson J, Rutkoski J, Wu SY, Manes Y, Dreisigacker S, Crossa J, Sánchez-Villeda H, Sorrells M, Jannink JL (2012a) Genomic selection in wheat breeding using genotyping-by-sequencing. Plant Genome 5(3):103–113.  https://doi.org/10.3835/Plantgenome2012.06.0006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poland JA, Brown PJ, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL (2012b) Development of high-density genetic maps for barley and wheat using a novel two-enzyme genotyping-by-sequencing approach. PLoS One 7:2.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0032253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. R Development Core Team (2010) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  41. Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA (2013) Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 8:6.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rutkoski J, Benson J, Jia Y, Brown-Guedira G, Jannink JL, Sorrells M (2012) Evaluation of genomic prediction methods for Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat. Plant Genome J 5(2):51.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2012.02.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rutkoski JE, Poland JA, Singh RP, Huerta-Espino J, Bhavani S, Barbier H, Rouse MN, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME (2014) Genomic selection for quantitative adult plant stem rust resistance in wheat. Plant Genome.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2014.02.0006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rutkoski J, Singh RP, Huerta-Espino J, Bhavani S, Poland J, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME (2015) Genetic gain from phenotypic and genomic selection for quantitative resistance to stem rust of wheat. Plant Genome 8:2.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2014.10.0074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rutkoski J, Poland J, Mondal S, Autrique E, Párez LG, Crossa J, Reynolds M, Singh R (2016) Canopy temperature and vegetation indices from high-throughput phenotyping improve accuracy of pedigree and genomic selection for grain yield in wheat. G3 Genes Genomes Genet 6(9):2799–2808.  https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.116.032888 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sun J, Rutkoski JE, Poland JA, Crossa J, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME (2017) Multitrait, random regression, or simple repeatability model in high-throughput phenotyping data improve genomic prediction for wheat grain yield. Plant Genome.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2016.11.0111 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Velu G, Crossa J, Singh RP, Hao Y, Dreisigacker S, Perez-Rodriguez P, Joshi A, Chatrath R, Gupta V, Balasubramaniam A, Tiwari C, Mishra VK, Sohu VS, Mavi GS (2016) Genomic prediction for grain zinc and iron concentrations in spring wheat. Theor Appl Genet 129(8):1595–1605.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-016-2726-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang Y, Mette M, Miedaner T, Gottwald M, Wilde P, Reif JC, Zhao Y (2014) The accuracy of prediction of genomic selection in elite hybrid rye populations surpasses the accuracy of marker-assisted selection and is equally augmented by multiple field evaluation locations and test years. BMC Genom 15(1):556.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Watanabe K, Guo W, Arai K, Takanashi H, Kajiya-Kanegae H, Kobayashi M, Yano K, Tokunaga T, Fujiwara T, Tsutsumi N, Iwata H (2017) High-throughput phenotyping of sorghum plant height using an unmanned aerial vehicle and its application to genomic prediction modeling. Front Plant Sci 8(March):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. White I, Thompson R, Brotherstone S (1999) Genetic and environmental smoothing of lactation curves with cubic splines. J Dairy Sci 82:632–638.  https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75277-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang W, Guo Z, Huang C, Duan L, Chen G, Jiang N, Fang W, Feng H, Xie W, Lian X, Wang G, Luo Q, Zhng Q, Liu Q, Xiong L (2014) Combining high-throughput phenotyping and genome-wide association studies to reveal natural genetic variation in rice. Nat Commun 5:5087.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6087 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang J, Song Q, Cregan PB, Jiang GL (2016) Genome-wide association study, genomic prediction and marker-assisted selection for seed weight in soybean (Glycine max). Theor Appl Genet 129(1):117–130.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-015-2614-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jin Sun
    • 1
  • Jesse A. Poland
    • 2
  • Suchismita Mondal
    • 3
  • José Crossa
    • 3
  • Philomin Juliana
    • 3
  • Ravi P. Singh
    • 3
  • Jessica E. Rutkoski
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jean-Luc Jannink
    • 1
    • 5
  • Leonardo Crespo-Herrera
    • 3
  • Govindan Velu
    • 3
  • Julio Huerta-Espino
    • 6
  • Mark E. Sorrells
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Plant Breeding and Genetics Section, School of Integrative Plant ScienceCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant Pathology and Department of AgronomyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  3. 3.International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)TexcocoMexico
  4. 4.International Rice Research InstituteLos BañosPhilippines
  5. 5.USDA-ARS R.W. Holley Center for Agriculture and HealthIthacaUSA
  6. 6.Campo Experimental Valle de México INIFAPChapingoMexico

Personalised recommendations