Genomic index selection provides a pragmatic framework for setting and refining multi-objective breeding targets in Miscanthus.
Miscanthus sinensis
Selection indices
breeding objectives
correlated responses
economic values
genomic selection
Journal
Annals of botany
ISSN: 1095-8290
Titre abrégé: Ann Bot
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0372347
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 10 2019
29 10 2019
Historique:
received:
01
05
2018
accepted:
02
10
2018
pubmed:
24
10
2018
medline:
19
3
2020
entrez:
24
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Miscanthus has potential as a biomass crop but the development of varieties that are consistently superior to the natural hybrid M. × giganteus has been challenging, presumably because of strong G × E interactions and poor knowledge of the complex genetic architectures of traits underlying biomass productivity and climatic adaptation. While linkage and association mapping studies are starting to generate long lists of candidate regions and even individual genes, it seems unlikely that this information can be translated into effective marker-assisted selection for the needs of breeding programmes. Genomic selection has emerged as a viable alternative, and prediction accuracies are moderate across a range of phenological and morphometric traits in Miscanthus, though relatively low for biomass yield per se. We have previously proposed a combination of index selection and genomic prediction as a way of overcoming the limitations imposed by the inherent complexity of biomass yield. Here we extend this approach and illustrate its potential to achieve multiple breeding targets simultaneously, in the absence of a priori knowledge about their relative economic importance, while also monitoring correlated selection responses for non-target traits. We evaluate two hypothetical scenarios of increasing biomass yield by 20 % within a single round of selection. In the first scenario, this is achieved in combination with delaying flowering by 44 d (roughly 20 %), whereas, in the second, increased yield is targeted jointly with reduced lignin (-5 %) and increased cellulose (+5 %) content, relative to current average levels in the breeding population. In both scenarios, the objectives were achieved efficiently (selection intensities corresponding to keeping the best 20 and 4 % of genotypes, respectively). However, the outcomes were strikingly different in terms of correlated responses, and the relative economic values (i.e. value per unit of change in each trait compared with that for biomass yield) of secondary traits included in selection indices varied considerably. Although these calculations rely on multiple assumptions, they highlight the need to evaluate breeding objectives and explicitly consider correlated responses in silico, prior to committing extensive resources. The proposed approach is broadly applicable for this purpose and can readily incorporate high-throughput phenotyping data as part of integrated breeding platforms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Miscanthus has potential as a biomass crop but the development of varieties that are consistently superior to the natural hybrid M. × giganteus has been challenging, presumably because of strong G × E interactions and poor knowledge of the complex genetic architectures of traits underlying biomass productivity and climatic adaptation. While linkage and association mapping studies are starting to generate long lists of candidate regions and even individual genes, it seems unlikely that this information can be translated into effective marker-assisted selection for the needs of breeding programmes. Genomic selection has emerged as a viable alternative, and prediction accuracies are moderate across a range of phenological and morphometric traits in Miscanthus, though relatively low for biomass yield per se.
METHODS
We have previously proposed a combination of index selection and genomic prediction as a way of overcoming the limitations imposed by the inherent complexity of biomass yield. Here we extend this approach and illustrate its potential to achieve multiple breeding targets simultaneously, in the absence of a priori knowledge about their relative economic importance, while also monitoring correlated selection responses for non-target traits. We evaluate two hypothetical scenarios of increasing biomass yield by 20 % within a single round of selection. In the first scenario, this is achieved in combination with delaying flowering by 44 d (roughly 20 %), whereas, in the second, increased yield is targeted jointly with reduced lignin (-5 %) and increased cellulose (+5 %) content, relative to current average levels in the breeding population.
KEY RESULTS
In both scenarios, the objectives were achieved efficiently (selection intensities corresponding to keeping the best 20 and 4 % of genotypes, respectively). However, the outcomes were strikingly different in terms of correlated responses, and the relative economic values (i.e. value per unit of change in each trait compared with that for biomass yield) of secondary traits included in selection indices varied considerably.
CONCLUSIONS
Although these calculations rely on multiple assumptions, they highlight the need to evaluate breeding objectives and explicitly consider correlated responses in silico, prior to committing extensive resources. The proposed approach is broadly applicable for this purpose and can readily incorporate high-throughput phenotyping data as part of integrated breeding platforms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30351424
pii: 5142550
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcy187
pmc: PMC6821339
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
521-530Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company.
Références
Am J Hum Genet. 2017 Jul 6;101(1):5-22
pubmed: 28686856
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 May;14(5):365-76
pubmed: 23571845
Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2014 Jun;27:38-45
pubmed: 24863895
Genetics. 2012 Dec;192(4):1513-22
pubmed: 23086217
Heredity (Edinb). 2019 May;122(5):672-683
pubmed: 30262841
Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Jun 17;12(7):499-510
pubmed: 21681211
Cell. 2017 Jun 15;169(7):1177-1186
pubmed: 28622505
Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
pubmed: 11290733
New Phytol. 2014 Mar;201(4):1227-1239
pubmed: 24308815
J Exp Bot. 2017 Nov 2;68(18):5093-5102
pubmed: 29040628
Theor Appl Genet. 2016 Dec;129(12):2323-2332
pubmed: 27681088
Ann Bot. 2014 Oct;114(6):1265-77
pubmed: 24737720
Plant Physiol. 2003 Jul;132(3):1688-97
pubmed: 12857847
Front Plant Sci. 2013 Nov 25;4:468
pubmed: 24324474
Plant Biotechnol J. 2014 Dec;12(9):1246-58
pubmed: 25431201
Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2018;164:109-138
pubmed: 29470600
Nat Genet. 2014 Oct;46(10):1089-96
pubmed: 25151358
Ann Bot. 2019 Oct 29;124(4):653-674
pubmed: 31665760
Food Energy Secur. 2015 Apr;4(1):25-35
pubmed: 27610230
Ann Bot. 2018 Feb 12;121(2):281-295
pubmed: 29300823
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2013;64:701-22
pubmed: 23473604
New Phytol. 2017 Mar;213(4):1710-1725
pubmed: 27859277
Ann Bot. 2019 Oct 29;124(4):553-566
pubmed: 30137291
Ann Bot. 2016 Oct 1;118(5):941-955
pubmed: 27451985
Plant Biotechnol J. 2017 Sep;15(9):1071-1092
pubmed: 28557198
Glob Change Biol Bioenergy. 2016 May;8(3):670-685
pubmed: 27547245
Theor Appl Genet. 2014 Dec;127(12):2619-33
pubmed: 25273129
Front Plant Sci. 2013 Jul 04;4:217
pubmed: 23847628
Science. 2009 Aug 7;325(5941):714-8
pubmed: 19661422
Front Plant Sci. 2013 Jul 01;4:218
pubmed: 23847629
Genet Sel Evol. 2009 Dec 31;41:55
pubmed: 20043827
G3 (Bethesda). 2017 Jan 5;7(1):41-53
pubmed: 27793970
PLoS One. 2017 May 18;12(5):e0177806
pubmed: 28542558
Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Mar;70(3):575-85
pubmed: 11836648