Cargando…

Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops

While sparse testing methods have been proposed by researchers to improve the efficiency of genomic selection (GS) in breeding programs, there are several factors that can hinder this. In this research, we evaluated four methods (M1–M4) for sparse testing allocation of lines to environments under mu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Montesinos-López, Osval A., Saint Pierre, Carolina, Gezan, Salvador A., Bentley, Alison R., Mosqueda-González, Brandon A., Montesinos-López, Abelardo, van Eeuwijk, Fred, Beyene, Yoseph, Gowda, Manje, Gardner, Keith, Gerard, Guillermo S., Crespo-Herrera, Leonardo, Crossa, José
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10137724/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37107685
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes14040927
_version_ 1785032535795826688
author Montesinos-López, Osval A.
Saint Pierre, Carolina
Gezan, Salvador A.
Bentley, Alison R.
Mosqueda-González, Brandon A.
Montesinos-López, Abelardo
van Eeuwijk, Fred
Beyene, Yoseph
Gowda, Manje
Gardner, Keith
Gerard, Guillermo S.
Crespo-Herrera, Leonardo
Crossa, José
author_facet Montesinos-López, Osval A.
Saint Pierre, Carolina
Gezan, Salvador A.
Bentley, Alison R.
Mosqueda-González, Brandon A.
Montesinos-López, Abelardo
van Eeuwijk, Fred
Beyene, Yoseph
Gowda, Manje
Gardner, Keith
Gerard, Guillermo S.
Crespo-Herrera, Leonardo
Crossa, José
author_sort Montesinos-López, Osval A.
collection PubMed
description While sparse testing methods have been proposed by researchers to improve the efficiency of genomic selection (GS) in breeding programs, there are several factors that can hinder this. In this research, we evaluated four methods (M1–M4) for sparse testing allocation of lines to environments under multi-environmental trails for genomic prediction of unobserved lines. The sparse testing methods described in this study are applied in a two-stage analysis to build the genomic training and testing sets in a strategy that allows each location or environment to evaluate only a subset of all genotypes rather than all of them. To ensure a valid implementation, the sparse testing methods presented here require BLUEs (or BLUPs) of the lines to be computed at the first stage using an appropriate experimental design and statistical analyses in each location (or environment). The evaluation of the four cultivar allocation methods to environments of the second stage was done with four data sets (two large and two small) under a multi-trait and uni-trait framework. We found that the multi-trait model produced better genomic prediction (GP) accuracy than the uni-trait model and that methods M3 and M4 were slightly better than methods M1 and M2 for the allocation of lines to environments. Some of the most important findings, however, were that even under a scenario where we used a training-testing relation of 15–85%, the prediction accuracy of the four methods barely decreased. This indicates that genomic sparse testing methods for data sets under these scenarios can save considerable operational and financial resources with only a small loss in precision, which can be shown in our cost-benefit analysis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10137724
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-101377242023-04-28 Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops Montesinos-López, Osval A. Saint Pierre, Carolina Gezan, Salvador A. Bentley, Alison R. Mosqueda-González, Brandon A. Montesinos-López, Abelardo van Eeuwijk, Fred Beyene, Yoseph Gowda, Manje Gardner, Keith Gerard, Guillermo S. Crespo-Herrera, Leonardo Crossa, José Genes (Basel) Article While sparse testing methods have been proposed by researchers to improve the efficiency of genomic selection (GS) in breeding programs, there are several factors that can hinder this. In this research, we evaluated four methods (M1–M4) for sparse testing allocation of lines to environments under multi-environmental trails for genomic prediction of unobserved lines. The sparse testing methods described in this study are applied in a two-stage analysis to build the genomic training and testing sets in a strategy that allows each location or environment to evaluate only a subset of all genotypes rather than all of them. To ensure a valid implementation, the sparse testing methods presented here require BLUEs (or BLUPs) of the lines to be computed at the first stage using an appropriate experimental design and statistical analyses in each location (or environment). The evaluation of the four cultivar allocation methods to environments of the second stage was done with four data sets (two large and two small) under a multi-trait and uni-trait framework. We found that the multi-trait model produced better genomic prediction (GP) accuracy than the uni-trait model and that methods M3 and M4 were slightly better than methods M1 and M2 for the allocation of lines to environments. Some of the most important findings, however, were that even under a scenario where we used a training-testing relation of 15–85%, the prediction accuracy of the four methods barely decreased. This indicates that genomic sparse testing methods for data sets under these scenarios can save considerable operational and financial resources with only a small loss in precision, which can be shown in our cost-benefit analysis. MDPI 2023-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10137724/ /pubmed/37107685 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes14040927 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Montesinos-López, Osval A.
Saint Pierre, Carolina
Gezan, Salvador A.
Bentley, Alison R.
Mosqueda-González, Brandon A.
Montesinos-López, Abelardo
van Eeuwijk, Fred
Beyene, Yoseph
Gowda, Manje
Gardner, Keith
Gerard, Guillermo S.
Crespo-Herrera, Leonardo
Crossa, José
Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops
title Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops
title_full Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops
title_fullStr Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops
title_full_unstemmed Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops
title_short Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops
title_sort optimizing sparse testing for genomic prediction of plant breeding crops
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10137724/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37107685
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes14040927
work_keys_str_mv AT montesinoslopezosvala optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT saintpierrecarolina optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT gezansalvadora optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT bentleyalisonr optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT mosquedagonzalezbrandona optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT montesinoslopezabelardo optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT vaneeuwijkfred optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT beyeneyoseph optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT gowdamanje optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT gardnerkeith optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT gerardguillermos optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT crespoherreraleonardo optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops
AT crossajose optimizingsparsetestingforgenomicpredictionofplantbreedingcrops