Improvement of prediction ability by integrating multi-omic datasets in barley.
Barley
Deleterious SV
Genomic prediction
Metabolome
Omic prediction
Transcriptome
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Mar 2022
12 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
17
09
2021
accepted:
20
01
2022
entrez:
13
3
2022
pubmed:
14
3
2022
medline:
16
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Genomic prediction (GP) based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) has become a broadly used tool to increase the gain of selection in plant breeding. However, using predictors that are biologically closer to the phenotypes such as transcriptome and metabolome may increase the prediction ability in GP. The objectives of this study were to (i) assess the prediction ability for three yield-related phenotypic traits using different omic datasets as single predictors compared to a SNP array, where these omic datasets included different types of sequence variants (full-SV, deleterious-dSV, and tolerant-tSV), different types of transcriptome (expression presence/absence variation-ePAV, gene expression-GE, and transcript expression-TE) sampled from two tissues, leaf and seedling, and metabolites (M); (ii) investigate the improvement in prediction ability when combining multiple omic datasets information to predict phenotypic variation in barley breeding programs; (iii) explore the predictive performance when using SV, GE, and ePAV from simulated 3'end mRNA sequencing of different lengths as predictors. The prediction ability from genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) for the three traits using dSV information was higher than when using tSV, all SV information, or the SNP array. Any predictors from the transcriptome (GE, TE, as well as ePAV) and metabolome provided higher prediction abilities compared to the SNP array and SV on average across the three traits. In addition, some (di)-similarity existed between different omic datasets, and therefore provided complementary biological perspectives to phenotypic variation. Optimal combining the information of dSV, TE, ePAV, as well as metabolites into GP models could improve the prediction ability over that of the single predictors alone. The use of integrated omic datasets in GP model is highly recommended. Furthermore, we evaluated a cost-effective approach generating 3'end mRNA sequencing with transcriptome data extracted from seedling without losing prediction ability in comparison to the full-length mRNA sequencing, paving the path for the use of such prediction methods in commercial breeding programs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Genomic prediction (GP) based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) has become a broadly used tool to increase the gain of selection in plant breeding. However, using predictors that are biologically closer to the phenotypes such as transcriptome and metabolome may increase the prediction ability in GP. The objectives of this study were to (i) assess the prediction ability for three yield-related phenotypic traits using different omic datasets as single predictors compared to a SNP array, where these omic datasets included different types of sequence variants (full-SV, deleterious-dSV, and tolerant-tSV), different types of transcriptome (expression presence/absence variation-ePAV, gene expression-GE, and transcript expression-TE) sampled from two tissues, leaf and seedling, and metabolites (M); (ii) investigate the improvement in prediction ability when combining multiple omic datasets information to predict phenotypic variation in barley breeding programs; (iii) explore the predictive performance when using SV, GE, and ePAV from simulated 3'end mRNA sequencing of different lengths as predictors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The prediction ability from genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) for the three traits using dSV information was higher than when using tSV, all SV information, or the SNP array. Any predictors from the transcriptome (GE, TE, as well as ePAV) and metabolome provided higher prediction abilities compared to the SNP array and SV on average across the three traits. In addition, some (di)-similarity existed between different omic datasets, and therefore provided complementary biological perspectives to phenotypic variation. Optimal combining the information of dSV, TE, ePAV, as well as metabolites into GP models could improve the prediction ability over that of the single predictors alone.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The use of integrated omic datasets in GP model is highly recommended. Furthermore, we evaluated a cost-effective approach generating 3'end mRNA sequencing with transcriptome data extracted from seedling without losing prediction ability in comparison to the full-length mRNA sequencing, paving the path for the use of such prediction methods in commercial breeding programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35279073
doi: 10.1186/s12864-022-08337-7
pii: 10.1186/s12864-022-08337-7
pmc: PMC8917753
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
200Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : EXC 2048/1, Project 4 ID: 390686111
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Nat Protoc. 2016 Jan;11(1):1-9
pubmed: 26633127
Bioinformatics. 2008 Mar 1;24(5):732-7
pubmed: 18204057
Nat Genet. 2001 Jul;28(3):286-9
pubmed: 11431702
J Anim Sci. 2015 May;93(5):2056-63
pubmed: 26020301
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Mar 13;104(11):4759-64
pubmed: 17360597
J Anim Breed Genet. 2016 Jun;133(3):167-79
pubmed: 26776363
Bioinform Biol Insights. 2020 Jan 31;14:1177932219899051
pubmed: 32076369
Dev Cell. 2016 Nov 21;39(4):383-385
pubmed: 27875679
Plant Biotechnol J. 2016 Apr;14(4):1095-8
pubmed: 26360509
Theor Appl Genet. 2013 Apr;126(4):867-87
pubmed: 23471459
Trends Plant Sci. 2012 Feb;17(2):91-101
pubmed: 22197176
BMC Bioinformatics. 2010 Jul 30;11:405
pubmed: 20673335
J Exp Bot. 2017 Dec 16;68(21-22):5699-5717
pubmed: 29126242
Genetics. 2018 Apr;208(4):1373-1385
pubmed: 29363551
Plant Biotechnol J. 2019 Oct;17(10):2011-2020
pubmed: 30950198
Anal Chem. 2009 Apr 15;81(8):3079-86
pubmed: 19301908
Plant Biotechnol J. 2021 Nov 16;:
pubmed: 34783155
Food Res Int. 2020 Mar;129:108748
pubmed: 32036907
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Oct 17;8:1792
pubmed: 29089957
Genome Res. 2006 Sep;16(9):1182-90
pubmed: 16902084
Mol Biol Evol. 2016 Sep;33(9):2307-17
pubmed: 27301592
J Anim Breed Genet. 2007 Dec;124(6):323-30
pubmed: 18076469
Cell. 2000 Oct 27;103(3):367-70
pubmed: 11081623
Theor Appl Genet. 2016 Dec;129(12):2413-2427
pubmed: 27586153
Sci Rep. 2016 Jan 05;6:18936
pubmed: 26729541
Genome Biol. 2007;8(9):R180
pubmed: 17784950
Nat Biotechnol. 2015 Mar;33(3):290-5
pubmed: 25690850
Nat Genet. 2012 Jan 15;44(2):217-20
pubmed: 22246502
J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2008 Aug 15;871(2):182-90
pubmed: 18501684
Trends Plant Sci. 2017 Nov;22(11):961-975
pubmed: 28965742
Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
pubmed: 11290733
BMC Genomics. 2019 Oct 29;20(1):787
pubmed: 31664921
Genome Res. 2001 May;11(5):863-74
pubmed: 11337480
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0234052
pubmed: 32502173
Genetics. 2007 Nov;177(3):1881-8
pubmed: 18039886
Hum Genomics. 2018 Jan 26;12(1):4
pubmed: 29373992
Nature. 2017 Apr 26;544(7651):427-433
pubmed: 28447635
Nat Protoc. 2006;1(1):387-96
pubmed: 17406261
Nat Methods. 2015 Apr;12(4):357-60
pubmed: 25751142
Plant Commun. 2019 Oct 16;1(1):100005
pubmed: 33404534
Front Genet. 2019 Feb 25;10:126
pubmed: 30858865
J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
pubmed: 18946147
Trends Plant Sci. 2014 Sep;19(9):592-601
pubmed: 24970707
Trends Genet. 2015 Jan;31(1):34-40
pubmed: 25284288