7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of single-trait and multi-trait genomic predictions on agronomic and disease resistance traits in spring wheat

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d3809884e223">This study performed comprehensive analyses on the predictive abilities of single-trait and two multi-trait models in three populations. Our results demonstrated the superiority of multi-traits over single-trait models across seven agronomic and four to seven disease resistance traits of different genetic architecture. The predictive ability of multi-trait and single-trait prediction models has not been investigated on diverse traits evaluated under organic and conventional management systems. Here, we compared the predictive abilities of 25% of a testing set that has not been evaluated for a single trait (ST), not evaluated for multi-traits (MT1), and evaluated for some traits but not others (MT2) in three spring wheat populations genotyped either with the wheat 90K single nucleotide polymorphisms array or DArTseq. Analyses were performed on seven agronomic traits evaluated under conventional and organic management systems, four to seven disease resistance traits, and all agronomic and disease resistance traits simultaneously. The average prediction accuracies of the ST, MT1, and MT2 models varied from 0.03 to 0.78 (mean 0.41), from 0.05 to 0.82 (mean 0.47), and from 0.05 to 0.92 (mean 0.67), respectively. The predictive ability of the MT2 model was significantly greater than the ST model in all traits and populations except common bunt with the MT1 model being intermediate between them. The MT2 model increased prediction accuracies over the ST and MT1 models in all traits by 9.0-82.4% (mean 37.3%) and 2.9-82.5% (mean 25.7%), respectively, except common bunt that showed up to 7.7% smaller accuracies in two populations. A joint analysis of all agronomic and disease resistance traits further improved accuracies within the MT1 and MT2 models on average by 21.4% and 17.4%, respectively, as compared to either the agronomic or disease resistance traits, demonstrating the high potential of the multi-traits models in improving prediction accuracies. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prediction of Total Genetic Value Using Genome-Wide Dense Marker Maps

          Recent advances in molecular genetic techniques will make dense marker maps available and genotyping many individuals for these markers feasible. Here we attempted to estimate the effects of ∼50,000 marker haplotypes simultaneously from a limited number of phenotypic records. A genome of 1000 cM was simulated with a marker spacing of 1 cM. The markers surrounding every 1-cM region were combined into marker haplotypes. Due to finite population size (Ne = 100), the marker haplotypes were in linkage disequilibrium with the QTL located between the markers. Using least squares, all haplotype effects could not be estimated simultaneously. When only the biggest effects were included, they were overestimated and the accuracy of predicting genetic values of the offspring of the recorded animals was only 0.32. Best linear unbiased prediction of haplotype effects assumed equal variances associated to each 1-cM chromosomal segment, which yielded an accuracy of 0.73, although this assumption was far from true. Bayesian methods that assumed a prior distribution of the variance associated with each chromosome segment increased this accuracy to 0.85, even when the prior was not correct. It was concluded that selection on genetic values predicted from markers could substantially increase the rate of genetic gain in animals and plants, especially if combined with reproductive techniques to shorten the generation interval.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Genome-Wide Regression and Prediction with the BGLR Statistical Package

            Many modern genomic data analyses require implementing regressions where the number of parameters (p, e.g., the number of marker effects) exceeds sample size (n). Implementing these large-p-with-small-n regressions poses several statistical and computational challenges, some of which can be confronted using Bayesian methods. This approach allows integrating various parametric and nonparametric shrinkage and variable selection procedures in a unified and consistent manner. The BGLR R-package implements a large collection of Bayesian regression models, including parametric variable selection and shrinkage methods and semiparametric procedures (Bayesian reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces regressions, RKHS). The software was originally developed for genomic applications; however, the methods implemented are useful for many nongenomic applications as well. The response can be continuous (censored or not) or categorical (either binary or ordinal). The algorithm is based on a Gibbs sampler with scalar updates and the implementation takes advantage of efficient compiled C and Fortran routines. In this article we describe the methods implemented in BGLR, present examples of the use of the package, and discuss practical issues emerging in real-data analysis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Characterization of polyploid wheat genomic diversity using a high-density 90 000 single nucleotide polymorphism array

              High-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping arrays are a powerful tool for studying genomic patterns of diversity, inferring ancestral relationships between individuals in populations and studying marker–trait associations in mapping experiments. We developed a genotyping array including about 90 000 gene-associated SNPs and used it to characterize genetic variation in allohexaploid and allotetraploid wheat populations. The array includes a significant fraction of common genome-wide distributed SNPs that are represented in populations of diverse geographical origin. We used density-based spatial clustering algorithms to enable high-throughput genotype calling in complex data sets obtained for polyploid wheat. We show that these model-free clustering algorithms provide accurate genotype calling in the presence of multiple clusters including clusters with low signal intensity resulting from significant sequence divergence at the target SNP site or gene deletions. Assays that detect low-intensity clusters can provide insight into the distribution of presence–absence variation (PAV) in wheat populations. A total of 46 977 SNPs from the wheat 90K array were genetically mapped using a combination of eight mapping populations. The developed array and cluster identification algorithms provide an opportunity to infer detailed haplotype structure in polyploid wheat and will serve as an invaluable resource for diversity studies and investigating the genetic basis of trait variation in wheat.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Theoretical and Applied Genetics
                Theor Appl Genet
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0040-5752
                1432-2242
                August 2022
                June 23 2022
                August 2022
                : 135
                : 8
                : 2747-2767
                Article
                10.1007/s00122-022-04147-3
                35737008
                f5567dce-5744-4081-b031-a2ba9d5eae10
                © 2022

                https://www.springer.com/tdm

                https://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article