Increased Prediction Accuracy in Wheat Breeding Trials Using a Marker × Environment Interaction Genomic Selection Model

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) models use genome-wide genetic information to predict genetic values of candidates of selection. Originally, these models were developed without considering genotype × environment interaction(G×E). Several authors have proposed extensions of the single-environment GS model that accommodate G×E using either covariance functions or environmental covariates. In this study, we model G×E using a marker × environment interaction (M×E) GS model; the approach is conceptually simple and can be implemented with existing GS software. We discuss how the model can be implemented by using an explicit regression of phenotypes on markers or using co-variance structures (a genomic best linear unbiased prediction-type model). We used the M×E model to analyze three CIMMYT wheat data sets (W1, W2, and W3), where more than 1000 lines were genotyped using genotyping-by-sequencing and evaluated at CIMMYT’s research station in Ciudad Obregon, Mexico, under simulated environmental conditions that covered different irrigation levels, sowing dates and planting systems. We compared the M×E model with a stratified (i.e., within-environment) analysis and with a standard (across-environment) GS model that assumes that effects are constant across environments (i.e., ignoring G×E). The prediction accuracy of the M×E model was substantially greater of that of an across-environment analysis that ignores G×E. Depending on the prediction problem, the M×E model had either similar or greater levels of prediction accuracy than the stratified analyses. The M×E model decomposes marker effects and genomic values into components that are stable across environments (main effects) and others that are environment-specific (interactions). Therefore, in principle, the interaction model could shed light over which variants have effects that are stable across environments and which ones are responsible for G×E. The data set and the scripts required to reproduce the analysis are publicly available as Supporting Information.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 32

1. 1.

   Boer M. P. Wright D. Feng L. Podlich D. W. Luo L. 2007 A mixed-model quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis for multiple-environment trial data using environmental covariables for QTL-by-environment interactions, with an example in maize. Genetics 177: 1801–1813.

   Not in our library10.1534/genetics.107.071068

2. 2.

   Braun H. J. Rajaram S. van Ginkel M., 1996 CIMMYT’s approach to breeding for wide adaptation. Euphytica 92: 175–183.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Burgueño J. Crossa J. Cornelius P. L. Trethowan R. McLaren G. 2007 Modeling additive × environment and additive × additive × environment using genetic covariance of relatives of wheat genotypes. Crop Sci. 47: 311–320.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Burgueño J. de los Campos G. Weigel K. Crossa J., 2012 Genomic prediction of breeding values when modeling genotype × environment interaction using pedigree and dense molecular markers. Crop Sci. 52: 707–719.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   Crossa J. Burgueño J. Cornelius P. L. Trethowan R. Krishnamachari A., 2006 Modeling genotype × environment interaction using additive genetic covariances of relatives for predicting breeding values of wheat genotypes. Crop Sci. 46: 1722–1733.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Crossa J. de los Campos G. Pérez P. Gianola D. Burgueño J. 2010 Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics 186: 713–724.

   Not in our library10.1534/genetics.110.118521

7. 7.

   Crossa J. Pérez P. de los Campos G. Mahuku G. Dreisigacker S. 2011 Genomic selection and prediction in plant breeding. J. Crop Improv. 25: 239–261.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Dawson J. C. Endelman J. B. Heslot N. Crossa J. Poland J. 2013 The use of unbalanced historical data for genomic selection in an international wheat breeding program. Field Crops Res. 154: 12–22.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   de los Campos, G., and P. Pérez-Rodriguez, 2014 Bayesian generalized linear regression. R package version 1.0.1. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BGLR. Accessed February 17, 2015.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    de los Campos G. Naya H. Gianola D. Crossa J. Legarra A. 2009 Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree. Genetics 182: 375–385.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.109.101501

11. 11.

    de los Campos G. Gianola D. Rosa G. J. M. Weigel K. Crossa J., 2010 Semi-parametric genomic-enabled prediction of genetic values using reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces methods. Genet. Res. 92: 295–308.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0016672310000285

12. 12.

    de los Campos G. Hickey J. M. Pong-Wong R. Daetwyler H. D. Calus M. P. L., 2013 Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics 193: 327–345.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.112.143313

13. 13.

    Eberhart S. A. Russell W. A., 1966 Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 6: 36–40.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Finlay K. W. Wilkinson G. N., 1963 The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding program. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 14: 742–754.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Heslot N. Yang H. P. Sorrells M. E. Jannink J. L., 2012 Genomic selection in plant breeding: a comparison of models. Crop Sci. 52: 146–160.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Heslot N. Akdemir D. Sorrells M. E. Jannink J. L., 2014 Integrating environmental covariates and crop modeling into the genomic selection framework to predict genotype by environment interactions. Theor. Appl. Genet. 127: 463–480.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00122-013-2231-5

17. 17.
    A reaction norm model for genomic selection using high-dimensional genomic and environmental data · 2013

    No notice
18. 18.

    Malosetti M. Voltas J. Romagosa I. Ullrich S. E. van Eeuwijk F. A., 2004 Mixed models including environmental covariables for studying QTL by environment interaction. Euphytica 137: 139–145.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    Malosetti M. Ribaut J. M. Vargas M. Crossa J. van Eeuwijk F. A., 2008 A multi-trait multi-environment QTL mixed model with an application to drought and nitrogen stress trials in maize (Zea mays L.). Euphytica 161: 241–257.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Meuwissen T. H. E. Hayes B. J. Goddard M. E., 2001 Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157: 1819–1829.

    Not in our library10.1093/genetics/157.4.1819

21. 21.

    Meyer K. Kirkpatrick M., 2008 Perils of parsimony: properties of reduced-rank estimates of genetic covariance matrix. Genetics 180: 1153–1166.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.108.090159

22. 22.

    Moreau L. Charcosset A. Gallais A., 2004 Use of trial clustering to study QTL x environment effects for grain yield and related traits in maize. Theor. Appl. Genet. 110: 92–105.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00122-004-1781-y

23. 23.
    Comparison Between Linear and Non-parametric Regression Models for Genome-Enabled Prediction in Wheat · 2012

    No notice
24. 24.

    Piepho H. P., 1997 Analyzing genotype-environment data by mixed models with multiplicative effects. Biometrics 53: 761–766.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    Piepho H. P., 1998 Empirical best linear unbiased prediction in cultivar trials using factor analytic variance covariance structure. Theor. Appl. Genet. 97: 195–201.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    Poland J. Endelman J. Dawson J. Ruthkoski J. Wu S. 2012 Genomic selection in wheat breeding using genotyping-by-sequencing. The Plant Genome 5: 103–113.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    R Core Team, 2013 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org. Accessed February 17, 2015.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    Smith A. B. Cullis B. R. Thompson R., 2005 The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: an overview of current mixed model approaches. J. Agric. Sci. 143: 449–462.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    van Eeuwijk F. A. Malosetti M. Yin X. Struik P. C. Stam P., 2005 Statistical models for genotype by environment data: from conventional ANOVA models to eco-physiological QTL models. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 56: 883–894.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    VanRaden P. M., 2007 Genomic measures of relationship and inbreeding. Interbull Bull 37: 33–36.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    VanRaden P. M., 2008 Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 91: 4414–4423.

    Not in our library10.3168/jds.2007-0980

32. 32.

    Yates F. Cochran W. G., 1938 The analysis of groups of experiments. J. Agric. Sci. 28: 556–580.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 11

• The Genetic Architecture for Phenotypic Plasticity of the Rice Grain Ionome · 2020
  Not checked
• A data-driven simulation platform to predict cultivars’ performances under uncertain weather conditions · 2020
  Not checked
• Impact of Climate Change on Crops Adaptation and Strategies to Tackle Its Outcome: A Review · 2019
  No notice
• Prospects and Challenges of Applied Genomic Selection—A New Paradigm in Breeding for Grain Yield in Bread Wheat · 2018
  Not checked
• Multi-trait, Multi-environment Deep Learning Modeling for Genomic-Enabled Prediction of Plant Traits · 2018
  No notice
• Accounting for Genotype-by-Environment Interactions and Residual Genetic Variation in Genomic Selection for Water-Soluble Carbohydrate Concentration in Wheat · 2018
  Not checked
• Multi-environment Genomic Prediction of Plant Traits Using Deep Learners With Dense Architecture · 2018
  No notice
• Genomic Prediction with Pedigree and Genotype × Environment Interaction in Spring Wheat Grown in South and West Asia, North Africa, and Mexico · 2017
  Not checked
• Genomic Prediction of Gene Bank Wheat Landraces · 2016
  No notice
• Genome-wide prediction models that incorporate de novo GWAS are a powerful new tool for tropical rice improvement · 2016
  No notice
• Envirotyping for deciphering environmental impacts on crop plants · 2016
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.