From genotype × environment interaction to gene × environment interaction

Current Genomics

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 225-244

  Crossa, Jose ^a  

^a INTERNATIONAL MAIZE AND WHEAT IMPROVEMENT CENTER CIMMYT   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Environmental and genotypic covariables; Gene environment interaction; Genomics enable prediction and selection; Genotype environment interaction (GE); Molecular markers (MM); Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL)

Indexed keywords

GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC MODEL; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; HUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PLANT BREEDING; REVIEW;

EID: 84860523798     PISSN: 13892029     EISSN: 18755488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/138920212800543066     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Cornelius, P.L.; Crossa, J.; Seyedsadr, M. Statistical tests and estimators for multiplicative models for cultivar trials. In: Kang, M.S.; Gauch, H.G.; Jr. Eds., Genotype-by-Environment Interaction. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1996, pp. 199-234.
2. Crossa, J.; P.L. Cornelius. Site regression and shifted multiplicative model clustering of cultivar trial sites under heterogeneity of error variances. Crop Sci., 1997, 37, 406-415.
3. Gauch, H.G. Jr. Model selection and validation for yield trials with interaction. Biometrics, 1988, 44, 705-715.
4. Gauch, H.G.; R.W. Zobel. Identifying mega-environments and targeting genotypes. Crop Sci., 1997, 37, 311-326.
5. Gabriel, K.R. The biplot graphic display of matrices with application to principal component analysis. Biometrika, 1971, 58, 453-467.
6. Kempton, R.A. The use of biplots in interpreting variety by environment interactions. J. Agric. Sci., 1984, 103, 123-135.
7. Gauch, H.G. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci., 2006, 46, 1488-1500.
8. Yan, W.; Tinker, N.A. An integrated system of biplot analysis for displaying, interpreting, and exploring genotype-by-environment interactions. Crop Sci., 2005, 45, 1004-1016.
9. Yan, W.; Kang, M.S.; Ma, B.; Woods, S.; Cornelius, P.L. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci., 2007, 47, 643-655.
10. Gauch, H.G.; Piepho, H.-P.; Annicchiarico, P. Statistical analysis of yield trials by AMMI and GGE: Further considerations. Crop Sci., 2008, 48, 866-889.
11. Yang, R.C.; Crossa, J.; Cornelius, P.L.; Burgueño, J. Biplot analysis of genotype × environment interaction: Proceed with caution. Crop Sci., 2009, 49, 1564-1576.
12. Piepho, H.P. Methods for comparing the yield stability of cropping systems-a review. J. Agronomy Crop Sci., 1998, 180, 193-213.
13. Piepho, H.P. Ridge regression and extensions for genome-wide selection in maize. Crop Sci., 2009, 49, 1-12.
14. Smith, A.; Cullis, B.R.; Thompson, R. Exploring varietyenvironment data using random effects AMMI models with adjustment for spatial field trends: Part 1: Theory. In: Kang, M.S. (Ed.), Quantitative Genetics, Genomics and Plant Breeding. CABI Publishing, Oxford, 2002.
15. Smith, A.B.; Cullis, B.R.; Thompson, R. The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: An overview of current mixed model approaches. J. Agric. Sci., 2005, 143, 1-14.
16. Crossa, J.; Burgueño, J.; Cornelius, P.L.; McLaren, G.; Trethowan, R.; Krishnamachari, A. Modeling genotype × environment interaction using additive genetic covariances of relatives for predicting breeding values of wheat genotypes. Crop Sci., 2006, 46, 1722-1733.
17. Piepho, H.P.; Mohring, J. Best linear unbiased prediction of cultivar effects for subdivided target regions. Crop Sci., 2005, 45, 1151-1159.
18. Burgueño, J.; Crossa, J.; Cornelius, P.L.; Trethowan, R.; McLaren, G.; Krishnamachari, A. Modeling additive × environment and additive × additive × environment using genetic covariances of relatives of wheat genotypes. Crop Sci., 2007, 43, 311-320.
19. Burgueño, J.; Crossa, J.; Cornelius, P.L.; Yang, R.-C. Using factor analytic models for joining environments and genotypes without crossover genotype × environment interaction. Crop Sci., 2008, 48, 1291-1305.
20. Piepho, H.-P. Analyzing genotype-environment data by mixed models with multiplicative terms. Biometrics, 1997, 53, 761-767.
21. Piepho, H.-P. Empirical best linear unbiased prediction in cultivar trials using factor analytic variance-covariance structures. Theor. Appl. Genet., 1998, 97 195-201.
22. Oakey, H.; Verbyla, A.; Pitchford, W.; Cullis, B.; Kuchel, H. Joint modeling of additive and non-additive genetic line effects in single field trials. Theor. Appl. Genet., 2006, 113, 809-819.
23. Cornelius, P.L.; Crossa, J. Prediction assessment of shrinkage estimators of multiplicative models for multi-environment cultivar trials. Crop Sci., 1999, 39, 998-1009.
24. Burgueño, J.; Crossa, J.; Miguel Cotes, J.; San Vicente, F.; Das, B. Prediction assessment of linear mixed models for multienvironment trials. Crop Sci., 2011, 51, 944-954.
25. Fisher, R.A. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans. R. Soc. Edinburg., 1918, 52, 399-433.
26. Malosetti, M.; Voltas, J.; Romagoza, I.; Ullrich, S.E.; van Eeuwjik, F.A. Mixed models including environmental covariables for studying QTL by environment interaction. Euphytica, 2004, 137, 139-145.
27. Malosetti, M.; Boers, M.P.; Bink, M.C.A.M.; van Eeuwjik, F.A. 2006. Multi-trait QTL analysis based on mixed model with parsimonious covariance matrices. I: Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on genetics Applied to Livestock Production, August 13-18, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. http://www.wcgalp8.org.br/wcgalp8. Article 25-04.
28. Lande, R.; Thompson, R. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics, 1990, 124, 743-756.
29. Meuwissen, T.H.E.; Hayes, B.J.; Goddard, M.E. Prediction of total genetic values using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics, 2001, 157, 1819-1829.
30. Bernardo, R.; Yu, J. Prospects for genome-wide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci., 2007, 47, 1082-1090.
31. de los Campos, G.; Naya, H.; Gianola, D.; Crossa, J.; Legarra, A.; Manfredi, E.; Weigel, K.; Cotes, J.M. Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree. Genetics, 2009, 182, 375-385.
32. Crossa, J.; de los Campos, G.; Pérez, P.; Gianola, D.; Dreisigacker, S.; Burgueño, J.; Araus, J.L.; Makumbi, D.; Yan, J.; Singh, R.; Arief, V.; Banziger, M.; Braun, H.-J. Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics, 2010, 186, 1-12.
33. Crossa, J.; Pérez, P.; de los Campos, G.; Mahuku, G.; Dreisigacker, S.; Magorokosho, C. Genomic selection and prediction in plant breeding. J. Crop Improve., 2011, 25, 239-261.
34. Pérez, P.; de los Campos, G.; Crossa, J.; Gianola, D. Genomicenabled prediction based on molecular markers and pedigree using the BLR package in R. Plant Genome, 2010, 3(2), 106-116.
35. Hayes, B.; Goddard, M. Genome-wide association and genomic selection in animal breeding. Genome, 2010, 53, 876-883.
36. VanRaden, P.M. Genomic measures of relationship and inbreeding. Interbull Bulletin, 2007, 37, 33-36.
37. Yates, F.; Cochran, W.G. The analysis of groups of experiments. J. Agric. Sci., 1938, 28, 556-580.
38. Finlay, K.W.; Wilkinson, G.N. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 1963, 14, 742-754.
39. Eberhart, S.A.; Russell, W.A. Stability parameter for comparing varieties. Crop Sci., 1966, 6, 36-40.
40. Williams, E.J. The interpretation of interactions in factorial experiments. Biometrika, 1952, 39, 65-81.
41. Gollob, H.F. A statistical model which combines features of factor analytic and analysis of variance. Psychometrika, 1968, 33, 73-115.
42. Mandel, J. The partitioning of interaction in analysis of variance. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand., Series B, 1969, 73, 309-328.
43. Gabriel, K.R. Least squares approximation of matrices by additive and multiplicative models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B, 1978, 40, 186-196.
44. Cornelius, P.L.; Seyedsadr, M. Estimation of general linear-bilinear models for two-way tables. J. Stat. Comput. Simul., 1997, 58, 287-322.
45. Crossa, J.; Yang, R.-C.; Cornelius, P.L. Studying crossover genotype × environment interaction using linear-bilinear models and mixed models. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat., 2004, 9, 362-380.
46. Vargas, M.; Crossa, J.; van Eeuwijk, F.A.; Ramirez, M.E.; Sayre, K. Using partial least squares, factorial regression and AMMI models for interpreting genotype×environment interaction. Crop Sci., 1999, 39, 955-967.
47. Van Eeuwijk, F.A.; Malosetti, M.; Yin, X.; Struik, P.C.; Stam, P. Statistical models for genotype by environment data: from conventional ANOVA models to eco-physiological QTL models. Aus. J. Agric. Res., 2005, 56, 883-894.
48. Crossa, J.; Vargas, M.; van Eeuwijk, F.A.; Jiang, C.; Edmeades, G.O.; Hoisington, D. Interpreting genotype×environment interaction in tropical maize using linked molecular markers and environmental covariables. Theor. Appl. Genet., 1999, 99, 611-625.
49. Denis, J.-B. Two-way analysis using covariates. Statistics, 1988, 19, 123-132.
50. van Eeuwijk, F.A.; Denis, J.-B.; Kang, M.S. Incorporating additional information on genotypes and environments in models for two-way genotype by environment tables. In Kang, S.; Gauch, H.G. (Eds.). Genotype-by-environment interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1996.
51. Vargas, M.; van Eeuwijk, F.A.; Crossa, J.; Ribaut, J.M. Mapping QTLs and QTL × environment interaction for CIMMYT maize drought stress program using factorial regression and partial least squares methods. Theor. Appl. Genet., 2006, 112, 1009-1023.
52. van Eeuwijk, F.A.; Crossa, J.; Vargas, M.; Ribaut, J.M. Variants of factorial regression for analysing QTL by environment interaction. Proceedings of the 11th Meeting of the EUCARPIA Section Biometrics in Plant Breeding. In Gallais, A.; Dillmann, C.; Goldringer, I. (eds.). Quantitative genetics and breeding methods: the way ahead. Paris, France, 2000.
53. Malosetti, M.; Ribaut, J.M.; Vargas, M.; Crossa, J.; van Eeuwijk, F.A. A multi-trait multi-environment QTL mixed model with application to drought and nitrogen stress trials in maize (Zea mays L.). Euphytica, 2008, 161, 241-257.
54. Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the LASSO. J. R. Statist. Soc. B., 1996, 58, 267-288.
55. Park, T.; Casella, G. The Bayesian LASSO. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 2008, 103, 681-686.
56. Gianola, D.; van Kaam, J.B.C.H.M. Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces regression methods for genomic assisted prediction of quantitative traits. Genetics, 2008, 178, 2289-2303.
57. Henderson, C.R. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics, 1975, 31, 423-447.
58. Piepho, H.P. Ridge regression and extensions for genome-wide selection in maize. Crop Sci., 2009, 49, 1-12.
59. Burgueño, J.; de los Campos, G.; Weigel, K.; Crossa, J. Genomic prediction of breeding values when modeling genotype × environment interaction using pedigree and dense molecular markers. Crop Sci., 2012, 52 707-719.