Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 209, Issue 3, pp 651–663 | Cite as

Genomewide prediction of tropical maize single-crosses

  • Marcela Pedroso Mendes
  • Cláudio Lopes de SouzaJr.
Article

Abstract

Genomic selection studies usually use few environmental models to predict progenies from biparental crosses. However, in a maize breeding program, numerous crosses need to be evaluated in multiple field trials to identify single-crosses with greater yield potential. In this study, 614 AFLP marker effects estimated in 250 maize single-crosses evaluated in 13 environments were used to assess the influence of training population size (N), number of markers (NM), genotype-by-environment interaction (G × E) and population structure on the prediction accuracy (rMG) for grain yield using RR-BLUP model. Cross validation analysis were performed within and across environments, and within and across groups of related single-crosses. Then, genomic selection was compared to phenotypic selection in identifying the best single-crosses in a maize breeding program scheme. In general, increasing the training population size and the number of markers did not led to higher accuracy estimates. Predicted accuracies from cross validation analysis within environments were significantly higher than between environments, indicating that the effect of G × E interaction was important. Accuracy estimates were also higher when training and validation sets were composed of related single-crosses. In all scenarios, wide intervals of accuracy were found, meaning that genomic prediction may not be effective depending on the single-crosses sampled. The use of genomic prediction in maize breeding programs was discussed emphasizing the need of a training set evaluated in multiple environments and designing a genomic selection experiment according to the population structure so as to reduce sample problems and maximize the accuracy and the success of prediction.

Keywords

Genomewide selection Hybrid Mixed model Genotype-by-environment interaction Population structure Zea mays 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Brazilian “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico” (CNPq—308499/2006-9 and CNPq—301717/2009-5), and by the Department of Genetics at the Agriculture College “Luiz de Queiroz”—University of São Paulo. C. L. Souza Jr. And M. P. Mendes are recipient of a research fellowship from CNPq. The authors are grateful to Dr. Anete Pereira de Souza, from the University of Campinas, for mapping the population; and to A. J. Desidério, C. R. Segatelli and A. Silva for their assistance in the field experiments. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable contributions to improve this paper.

References

  1. Albrecht T, Wimmer V, Auinger HJ, Erbe M, Knaak C, Ouzunova M, Simianer H, Schon CC (2011) Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize. Theor Appl Genet 123:339–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht T, Auinger HJ, Wimmer V, Ogutu JO, Knaak C, Ouzunova M, Piepho HP, Schon CC (2014) Genome-based prediction of maize hybrid performance across genetic groups, testers, locations and years. Theor Appl Genet 127:1375–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Alves GF (2006) Relações entre seleção de testadores de milho e suas divergências genéticas. Theses, Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, Universidade de São PauloGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardo R (2010) Breeding for quantitative traits in plants. Stemma Press, WoodburyGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardo R, Yu J (2007) Prospects for genome wide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci 47:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonin A, Bellemain E, Bronken Eidesen P, Pompanon F, Brochmann C, Taberlet P (2004) How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies. Mol Ecol 13:3261–3273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Combs E, Bernardo R (2013) Accuracy of genomewide selection for different traits with constant population size, heritability, and number of markers. Plant Genome 6:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crossa J, de los Campos G, Perez 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 186:713–724CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossa J, Pérez P, Hickey J, Burgueño J, Ornella L, Cerón-Rojas J, Zhang X, Dreisigacker S, Babu R, Li Y, Bonnett D, Mathews K (2014) Genomic prediction in CIMMYT maize and wheat breeding programs. Heredity 112:48–60CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Dekkers JCM (2007) Prediction of response to marker-assisted and genomic selection using selection index theory. J Anim Breed Genet 124:331–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Development Core Team R (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  12. Endelman JB (2011) Ridge regression and other kernels for genomic selection with R package rrBLUP. The Plant Genome 4:250–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longmans Green, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  14. Goddard ME, Hayes BJ (2007) Genomic selection. J Anim Breed Genet 124:323–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hallauer AR, Carena MJ, Miranda Filho JB (2010) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen M, Kraft T, Christiansson M, Nilsson NO (1999) Evaluation of AFLP in Beta. Theor Appl Genet 98:845–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes BJ, Cogan NOI, Pembleton LW, Goddard ME, Wang J, Spangenberg GC, Foster JW (2013) Prospects for genomic selection in forage plant species. Plant Breed 132:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heffner EL, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL (2009) Genomic selection for crop improvement. Crop Sci 49:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heffner EL, Lorenz AJ, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME (2010) Plant breeding with genomic selection: gain per unit time and cost. Crop Sci 50:1681–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson CR (1984) Applications of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar
  21. Hickey MJ, Dreisigacker S, Crossa J, Hearne S, Babu R, Prasanna BM, Grondona M, Zambelli A, Windhausen VS, Mathews K, Gorjanc G (2014) Evaluation of genomic selection training population designs and genotyping strategies in plant breeding programs using simulation. Crop Sci 54:1476–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobson A, Lian L, Zhong S, Bernardo R (2014) General combining ability model for genomewide selection in a biparental cross. Crop Sci 54:895–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li JZ, Zhang ZW, Li YL, Wang QL, Zhou YG (2011) QTL consistency and meta-analysis for grain yield components in three generations in maize. Theor Appl Genet 122:771–782CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lian L, Jacobson A, Zhong S, Bernardo R (2014) Genomewide prediction accuracy within 969 maize biparental populations. Crop Sci 54:1514–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorenzana RE, Bernardo R (2009) Accuracy of genotypic value predictions for marker- based selection in biparental plant populations. Theor Appl Genet 120:151–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Massman JM, Gordillo A, Lorenzana RE, Bernardo R (2013) Genomewide predictions from maize single-cross data. Theor Appl Genet 126:13–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Meudt HM, Clarke AC (2007) Almost forgotten or latest practice? AFLP applications, analyses and advances. Trends Plant Sci 12:106–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Mueller UG, Wolfenbarger LL (1999) AFLP genotyping and fingerprinting. Trends Ecol Evol 14:389–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pompanon F, Bonin A, Bellemain E, Taberlet P (2005) Genotyping errors: causes, consequences and solutions. Nat Rev Genet 6:847–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. SAS Institute (2008) Statistical analysis software. Cary, NC, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  32. Schulz-Streeck T, Ogutu JO, Karaman Z, Knaak C, Piepho HP (2012) Genomic selection using multiple populations. Crop Sci 52:2453–2461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schulz-Streeck T, Ogutu JO, Gordillo A, Karaman Z, Knaak C, Piepho HP (2013) Genomic selection allowing for marker-by-environment interaction. Plant Breed 132:532–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shirasawa K, Kishitani S, Nishio T (2004) Conversion of AFLP markers to sequence-specific markers for closely relate lines in rice by use of the rice genome sequence. Mol Breed 14:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singh BD, Singh AK (2015) Marker-assisted plant breeding: principles and practices. Springer, New DelhiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith AB, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2005) The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: an overview of current mixed model approaches. J Agric Sci 143:449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Veldboom LR, Lee M (1994) Molecular-marker facilited studies of morphological traits in maize. II: determination of QTL for grain yield and yield components. Theor Appl Genet 89:451–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Vignal A, Milan D, SanCristobal M, Eggen A (2002) A review on SNP and other types of molecular markers and their use in animal genetics. Genet Select Evol 34:275–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vos P, Rogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, Van de Lee T, Hornes M, Fritjers A, Pot J, Peleman J, Kuipe M, Zabeau M (1995) AFLP: a new technic for DNA fingerprint. Nucleic Acids Res 23:4407–4414CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Windhausen VS, Atlin GN, Hickey JM, Crossa J, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME, Raman B, Cairns JE, Tarekegne A, Semagn K, Beyene Y, Grudloyma P, Technow F, Riedelsheimer C, Melchinger AE (2012) Effectiveness of genomic prediction of maize hybrid performance in different breeding populations and environments. Genes Genomes Genetics 2:1427–1436PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Wolf DP, Peternelli LA, Hallauer AR (2000) Estimates of genetic variance in an F2 maize population. J Hered 91:384–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Genetics, Agriculture College “Luiz de Queiroz”University of São PauloPiracicabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations