Optimizing Sparse Testing for Genomic Prediction of Plant Breeding Crops.
and uni-trait
genomic prediction
maize
multi-trait
sparse testing
wheat
Journal
Genes
ISSN: 2073-4425
Titre abrégé: Genes (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101551097
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 04 2023
17 04 2023
Historique:
received:
01
03
2023
revised:
07
04
2023
accepted:
13
04
2023
medline:
1
5
2023
pubmed:
28
4
2023
entrez:
28
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While sparse testing methods have been proposed by researchers to improve the efficiency of genomic selection (GS) in breeding programs, there are several factors that can hinder this. In this research, we evaluated four methods (M1-M4) for sparse testing allocation of lines to environments under multi-environmental trails for genomic prediction of unobserved lines. The sparse testing methods described in this study are applied in a two-stage analysis to build the genomic training and testing sets in a strategy that allows each location or environment to evaluate only a subset of all genotypes rather than all of them. To ensure a valid implementation, the sparse testing methods presented here require BLUEs (or BLUPs) of the lines to be computed at the first stage using an appropriate experimental design and statistical analyses in each location (or environment). The evaluation of the four cultivar allocation methods to environments of the second stage was done with four data sets (two large and two small) under a multi-trait and uni-trait framework. We found that the multi-trait model produced better genomic prediction (GP) accuracy than the uni-trait model and that methods M3 and M4 were slightly better than methods M1 and M2 for the allocation of lines to environments. Some of the most important findings, however, were that even under a scenario where we used a training-testing relation of 15-85%, the prediction accuracy of the four methods barely decreased. This indicates that genomic sparse testing methods for data sets under these scenarios can save considerable operational and financial resources with only a small loss in precision, which can be shown in our cost-benefit analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37107685
pii: genes14040927
doi: 10.3390/genes14040927
pmc: PMC10137724
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Trends Genet. 2011 Aug;27(8):323-31
pubmed: 21684621
Nat Genet. 2015 Jan;47(1):88-91
pubmed: 25436857
Am J Hum Genet. 2009 Sep;85(3):309-20
pubmed: 19733727
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Nov 22;7:1666
pubmed: 27920780
Trends Plant Sci. 2017 Nov;22(11):961-975
pubmed: 28965742
Plant Genome. 2022 Mar;15(1):e20194
pubmed: 35170851
Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
pubmed: 11290733
Theor Appl Genet. 2015 Jan;128(1):55-72
pubmed: 25326722
G3 (Bethesda). 2020 Aug 5;10(8):2725-2739
pubmed: 32527748
Plant Genome. 2017 Nov;10(3):
pubmed: 29293806
Hum Mol Genet. 2002 Oct 1;11(20):2463-8
pubmed: 12351582
Plant Genome. 2021 Nov;14(3):e20151
pubmed: 34510790
J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
pubmed: 18946147
Genetics. 2014 Oct;198(2):483-95
pubmed: 25009151