Efficiency of genomic prediction across two Eucalyptus nitens seed orchards with different selection histories.
Journal
Heredity
ISSN: 1365-2540
Titre abrégé: Heredity (Edinb)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0373007
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
18
01
2018
accepted:
12
06
2018
revised:
11
06
2018
pubmed:
8
7
2018
medline:
15
5
2020
entrez:
8
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Genomic selection is expected to enhance the genetic improvement of forest tree species by providing more accurate estimates of breeding values through marker-based relationship matrices compared with pedigree-based methodologies. When adequately robust genomic prediction models are available, an additional increase in genetic gains can be made possible with the shortening of the breeding cycle through elimination of the progeny testing phase and early selection of parental candidates. The potential of genomic selection was investigated in an advanced Eucalyptus nitens breeding population focused on improvement for solid wood production. A high-density SNP chip (EUChip60K) was used to genotype 691 individuals in the breeding population, which represented two seed orchards with different selection histories. Phenotypic records for growth and form traits at age six, and for wood quality traits at age seven were available to build genomic prediction models using GBLUP, which were compared to the traditional pedigree-based alternative using BLUP. GBLUP demonstrated that breeding value accuracy would be improved and substantial increases in genetic gains towards solid wood production would be achieved. Cross-validation within and across two different seed orchards indicated that genomic predictions would likely benefit in terms of higher predictive accuracy from increasing the size of the training data sets through higher relatedness and better utilization of LD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29980794
doi: 10.1038/s41437-018-0119-5
pii: 10.1038/s41437-018-0119-5
pmc: PMC6460750
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
370-379Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 22;12(9):e0185137
pubmed: 28938023
J Anim Sci. 1997 Jul;75(7):1738-45
pubmed: 9222829
New Phytol. 2012 Feb;193(3):617-24
pubmed: 21973055
PLoS One. 2011 May 04;6(5):e19379
pubmed: 21573248
BMC Genomics. 2017 Jul 11;18(1):524
pubmed: 28693539
G3 (Bethesda). 2013 May 20;3(5):909-16
pubmed: 23585458
Genet Res (Camb). 2009 Feb;91(1):47-60
pubmed: 19220931
Genet Sel Evol. 2010 Feb 19;42:5
pubmed: 20170500
Plant Sci. 2016 Jan;242:108-119
pubmed: 26566829
J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
pubmed: 18946147
Heredity (Edinb). 2014 Oct;113(4):343-52
pubmed: 24781808
PLoS Genet. 2016 Sep 02;12(9):e1006288
pubmed: 27589268
Genet Sel Evol. 2014 Jan 20;46:3
pubmed: 24444432
New Phytol. 2008;179(4):911-29
pubmed: 18537893
BMC Genomics. 2014 Dec 02;15:1048
pubmed: 25442968
Plant J. 2013 Jul;75(1):146-156
pubmed: 23551702
BMC Genomics. 2017 Apr 28;18(1):335
pubmed: 28454519
Genetics. 2007 Dec;177(4):2389-97
pubmed: 18073436
Genetics. 2012 Apr;190(4):1503-10
pubmed: 22271763
Genetics. 2013 Jul;194(3):597-607
pubmed: 23640517
PLoS One. 2011;6(10):e25737
pubmed: 21991342
Genet Sel Evol. 2011 Jan 05;43:1
pubmed: 21208445
Plant Sci. 2018 Feb;267:84-93
pubmed: 29362102
Heredity (Edinb). 2015 Dec;115(6):547-55
pubmed: 26126540
New Phytol. 2015 Jun;206(4):1527-40
pubmed: 25684350
Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
pubmed: 11290733
New Phytol. 2012 Apr;194(1):116-28
pubmed: 22309312
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 09;10(7):e0130601
pubmed: 26158446
BMC Plant Biol. 2017 Jun 29;17(1):110
pubmed: 28662679
BMC Genomics. 2015 May 09;16:370
pubmed: 25956247