Cargando…

Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions

Several genomic prediction models combining genotype × environment (G×E) interactions have recently been developed and used for genomic selection (GS) in plant breeding programs. G×E interactions reduce selection accuracy and limit genetic gains in plant breeding. Two data sets were used to compare...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Souza, Livia M., Francisco, Felipe R., Gonçalves, Paulo S., Scaloppi Junior, Erivaldo J., Le Guen, Vincent, Fritsche-Neto, Roberto, Souza, Anete P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6824234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31708955
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01353
_version_ 1783464703229427712
author Souza, Livia M.
Francisco, Felipe R.
Gonçalves, Paulo S.
Scaloppi Junior, Erivaldo J.
Le Guen, Vincent
Fritsche-Neto, Roberto
Souza, Anete P.
author_facet Souza, Livia M.
Francisco, Felipe R.
Gonçalves, Paulo S.
Scaloppi Junior, Erivaldo J.
Le Guen, Vincent
Fritsche-Neto, Roberto
Souza, Anete P.
author_sort Souza, Livia M.
collection PubMed
description Several genomic prediction models combining genotype × environment (G×E) interactions have recently been developed and used for genomic selection (GS) in plant breeding programs. G×E interactions reduce selection accuracy and limit genetic gains in plant breeding. Two data sets were used to compare the prediction abilities of multienvironment G×E genomic models and two kernel methods. Specifically, a linear kernel, or GB (genomic best linear unbiased predictor [GBLUP]), and a nonlinear kernel, or Gaussian kernel (GK), were used to compare the prediction accuracies (PAs) of four genomic prediction models: 1) a single-environment, main genotypic effect model (SM); 2) a multienvironment, main genotypic effect model (MM); 3) a multienvironment, single-variance G×E deviation model (MDs); and 4) a multienvironment, environment-specific variance G×E deviation model (MDe). We evaluated the utility of genomic selection (GS) for 435 individual rubber trees at two sites and genotyped the individuals via genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Prediction models were used to estimate stem circumference (SC) during the first 4 years of tree development in conjunction with a broad-sense heritability (H (2)) of 0.60. Applying the model (SM, MM, MDs, and MDe) and kernel method (GB and GK) combinations to the rubber tree data revealed that the multienvironment models were superior to the single-environment genomic models, regardless of the kernel (GB or GK) used, suggesting that introducing interactions between markers and environmental conditions increases the proportion of variance explained by the model and, more importantly, the PA. Compared with the classic breeding method (CBM), methods in which GS is incorporated resulted in a 5-fold increase in response to selection for SC with multienvironment GS (MM, MDe, or MDs). Furthermore, GS resulted in a more balanced selection response for SC and contributed to a reduction in selection time when used in conjunction with traditional genetic breeding programs. Given the rapid advances in genotyping methods and their declining costs and given the overall costs of large-scale progeny testing and shortened breeding cycles, we expect GS to be implemented in rubber tree breeding programs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6824234
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68242342019-11-08 Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions Souza, Livia M. Francisco, Felipe R. Gonçalves, Paulo S. Scaloppi Junior, Erivaldo J. Le Guen, Vincent Fritsche-Neto, Roberto Souza, Anete P. Front Plant Sci Plant Science Several genomic prediction models combining genotype × environment (G×E) interactions have recently been developed and used for genomic selection (GS) in plant breeding programs. G×E interactions reduce selection accuracy and limit genetic gains in plant breeding. Two data sets were used to compare the prediction abilities of multienvironment G×E genomic models and two kernel methods. Specifically, a linear kernel, or GB (genomic best linear unbiased predictor [GBLUP]), and a nonlinear kernel, or Gaussian kernel (GK), were used to compare the prediction accuracies (PAs) of four genomic prediction models: 1) a single-environment, main genotypic effect model (SM); 2) a multienvironment, main genotypic effect model (MM); 3) a multienvironment, single-variance G×E deviation model (MDs); and 4) a multienvironment, environment-specific variance G×E deviation model (MDe). We evaluated the utility of genomic selection (GS) for 435 individual rubber trees at two sites and genotyped the individuals via genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Prediction models were used to estimate stem circumference (SC) during the first 4 years of tree development in conjunction with a broad-sense heritability (H (2)) of 0.60. Applying the model (SM, MM, MDs, and MDe) and kernel method (GB and GK) combinations to the rubber tree data revealed that the multienvironment models were superior to the single-environment genomic models, regardless of the kernel (GB or GK) used, suggesting that introducing interactions between markers and environmental conditions increases the proportion of variance explained by the model and, more importantly, the PA. Compared with the classic breeding method (CBM), methods in which GS is incorporated resulted in a 5-fold increase in response to selection for SC with multienvironment GS (MM, MDe, or MDs). Furthermore, GS resulted in a more balanced selection response for SC and contributed to a reduction in selection time when used in conjunction with traditional genetic breeding programs. Given the rapid advances in genotyping methods and their declining costs and given the overall costs of large-scale progeny testing and shortened breeding cycles, we expect GS to be implemented in rubber tree breeding programs. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6824234/ /pubmed/31708955 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01353 Text en Copyright © 2019 Souza, Francisco, Gonçalves, Scaloppi Junior, Le Guen, Fritsche-Neto and Souza http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Plant Science
Souza, Livia M.
Francisco, Felipe R.
Gonçalves, Paulo S.
Scaloppi Junior, Erivaldo J.
Le Guen, Vincent
Fritsche-Neto, Roberto
Souza, Anete P.
Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions
title Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions
title_full Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions
title_fullStr Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions
title_full_unstemmed Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions
title_short Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions
title_sort genomic selection in rubber tree breeding: a comparison of models and methods for managing g×e interactions
topic Plant Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6824234/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31708955
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01353
work_keys_str_mv AT souzaliviam genomicselectioninrubbertreebreedingacomparisonofmodelsandmethodsformanaginggeinteractions
AT franciscofeliper genomicselectioninrubbertreebreedingacomparisonofmodelsandmethodsformanaginggeinteractions
AT goncalvespaulos genomicselectioninrubbertreebreedingacomparisonofmodelsandmethodsformanaginggeinteractions
AT scaloppijuniorerivaldoj genomicselectioninrubbertreebreedingacomparisonofmodelsandmethodsformanaginggeinteractions
AT leguenvincent genomicselectioninrubbertreebreedingacomparisonofmodelsandmethodsformanaginggeinteractions
AT fritschenetoroberto genomicselectioninrubbertreebreedingacomparisonofmodelsandmethodsformanaginggeinteractions
AT souzaanetep genomicselectioninrubbertreebreedingacomparisonofmodelsandmethodsformanaginggeinteractions