Multi-environment genomic prediction for soluble solids content in peach (

G × E factor-analytic global genomic prediction mixed models multivariate parsimony

Journal

Frontiers in plant science
ISSN: 1664-462X
Titre abrégé: Front Plant Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568200

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 03 06 2022
accepted: 01 08 2022
entrez: 24 10 2022
pubmed: 25 10 2022
medline: 25 10 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Genotype-by-environment interaction (G × E) is a common phenomenon influencing genetic improvement in plants, and a good understanding of this phenomenon is important for breeding and cultivar deployment strategies. However, there is little information on G × E in horticultural tree crops, mostly due to evaluation costs, leading to a focus on the development and deployment of locally adapted germplasm. Using sweetness (measured as soluble solids content, SSC) in peach/nectarine assessed at four trials from three US peach-breeding programs as a case study, we evaluated the hypotheses that (i) complex data from multiple breeding programs can be connected using GBLUP models to improve the knowledge of G × E for breeding and deployment and (ii) accounting for a known large-effect quantitative trait locus (QTL) improves the prediction accuracy. Following a structured strategy using univariate and multivariate models containing additive and dominance genomic effects on SSC, a model that included a previously detected QTL and background genomic effects was a significantly better fit than a genome-wide model with completely anonymous markers. Estimates of an individual's narrow-sense and broad-sense heritability for SSC were high (0.57-0.73 and 0.66-0.80, respectively), with 19-32% of total genomic variance explained by the QTL. Genome-wide dominance effects and QTL effects were stable across environments. Significant G × E was detected for background genome effects, mostly due to the low correlation of these effects across seasons within a particular trial. The expected prediction accuracy, estimated from the linear model, was higher than the realised prediction accuracy estimated by cross-validation, suggesting that these two parameters measure different qualities of the prediction models. While prediction accuracy was improved in some cases by combining data across trials, particularly when phenotypic data for untested individuals were available from other trials, this improvement was not consistent. This study confirms that complex data can be combined into a single analysis using GBLUP methods to improve understanding of G × E and also incorporate known QTL effects. In addition, the study generated baseline information to account for population structure in genomic prediction models in horticultural crop improvement.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36275520
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.960449
pmc: PMC9583944
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

960449

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Hardner, Fikere, Gasic, da Silva Linge, Worthington, Byrne, Rawandoozi and Peace.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Theor Appl Genet. 2014 May;127(5):1073-90
pubmed: 24567047
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 27;14(6):e0210928
pubmed: 31246947
J Food Sci. 2013 Apr;78(4):S605-14
pubmed: 23464630
J Dairy Sci. 2012 Jul;95(7):4114-29
pubmed: 22720968
J Anim Sci. 2010 Jan;88(1):32-46
pubmed: 19749023
Theor Appl Genet. 2015 Jan;128(1):145-58
pubmed: 25367380
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 25;17(2):e0264543
pubmed: 35213640
Genetics. 2008 Sep;180(1):611-8
pubmed: 18757934
Genet Sel Evol. 2018 Mar 24;50(1):10
pubmed: 29571285
Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
pubmed: 11290733
Genetics. 2013 Jun;194(2):493-503
pubmed: 23535384
Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Sep;81(3):559-75
pubmed: 17701901
Hortic Res. 2020 Apr 1;7:47
pubmed: 32257233
Hortic Res. 2016 Mar 23;3:16008
pubmed: 27019717
Nat Commun. 2018 Dec 20;9(1):5404
pubmed: 30573726
G3 (Bethesda). 2017 Nov 6;7(11):3571-3586
pubmed: 28916649
J Dairy Sci. 2003 Feb;86(2):677-9
pubmed: 12647974
Genetics. 2012 Oct;192(2):693-704
pubmed: 22813891
Am J Hum Genet. 2007 Nov;81(5):1084-97
pubmed: 17924348
BMC Genomics. 2020 Jul 29;21(1):522
pubmed: 32727362
BMC Genomics. 2017 Jun 6;18(1):404
pubmed: 28583082
Hortic Res. 2015 Dec 23;2:15060
pubmed: 26744627
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36674
pubmed: 22574211
Front Physiol. 2013 Mar 12;4:44
pubmed: 23487515
Sci Rep. 2019 Jun 21;9(1):9072
pubmed: 31227781
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45293
pubmed: 23028912
Trends Plant Sci. 2014 Jun;19(6):390-8
pubmed: 24491827
Theor Appl Genet. 2013 May;126(5):1285-303
pubmed: 23381808
Front Plant Sci. 2021 Feb 25;12:644799
pubmed: 33732279
BMC Genomics. 2021 May 20;22(1):370
pubmed: 34016055
Genetics. 2007 Dec;177(4):2389-97
pubmed: 18073436
PLoS One. 2019 May 6;14(5):e0208871
pubmed: 31059529
J Hered. 2016 Jul;107(4):372-9
pubmed: 27025440
Science. 1994 Sep 30;265(5181):2037-48
pubmed: 8091226
Hortic Res. 2019 Apr 5;6:58
pubmed: 30962943
BMC Genomics. 2017 Mar 11;18(1):225
pubmed: 28284188
Genetics. 2013 Jul;194(3):597-607
pubmed: 23640517
J Anim Sci. 2007 Apr;85(4):881-5
pubmed: 17085728
Trends Plant Sci. 2017 Nov;22(11):961-975
pubmed: 28965742
Hortic Res. 2019 Jan 1;6:6
pubmed: 30603092
Hortic Res. 2017 Mar 15;4:17006
pubmed: 28326185
Front Plant Sci. 2021 May 17;12:656158
pubmed: 34079568
Theor Appl Genet. 1968 Jun;38(6):226-31
pubmed: 24442307
Theor Appl Genet. 1994 Jul;88(5):561-72
pubmed: 24186111
Hortic Res. 2020 Nov 1;7(1):177
pubmed: 33328430
PLoS One. 2012;7(4):e35668
pubmed: 22536421
Hortic Res. 2016 Jan 20;3:15067
pubmed: 26816618
Genet Res (Camb). 2009 Feb;91(1):47-60
pubmed: 19220931
Biometrics. 2001 Dec;57(4):1138-47
pubmed: 11764254
BMC Genomics. 2017 Jun 6;18(1):432
pubmed: 28583089
G3 (Bethesda). 2012 Nov;2(11):1427-36
pubmed: 23173094
Theor Appl Genet. 2014 Mar;127(3):749-62
pubmed: 24452438
Nat Genet. 2013 May;45(5):487-94
pubmed: 23525075
Genetics. 2017 Oct;207(2):503-515
pubmed: 28821589
Hortic Res. 2020 Sep 1;7:148
pubmed: 32922820
Biometrics. 1997 Sep;53(3):983-97
pubmed: 9333350
Front Plant Sci. 2020 Dec 16;11:592977
pubmed: 33391305
J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
pubmed: 18946147
J Sci Food Agric. 2016 May;96(7):2451-61
pubmed: 26249651
Biometrics. 1994 Dec;50(4):1171-7
pubmed: 7786999
J Agric Food Chem. 2009 Jun 10;57(11):4586-92
pubmed: 19397288
Nat Genet. 2010 Jul;42(7):565-9
pubmed: 20562875
Genet Sel Evol. 2009 Nov 24;41:51
pubmed: 19930712
Nat Genet. 2006 Feb;38(2):203-8
pubmed: 16380716
J Anim Breed Genet. 2007 Dec;124(6):362-8
pubmed: 18076473

Auteurs

Craig M Hardner (CM)

Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Mulusew Fikere (M)

Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Ksenija Gasic (K)

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.

Cassia da Silva Linge (C)

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States.

Margaret Worthington (M)

Faculty Horticulture, University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR, United States.

David Byrne (D)

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.

Zena Rawandoozi (Z)

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.

Cameron Peace (C)

Department of Horticulture, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, United States.

Classifications MeSH