Will genomic selection be a practical method for plant breeding?

Annals of Botany

Volumn 110, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1303-1316

  Nakaya, Akihiro ^a   Isobe, Sachiko N ^b  

^a NIIGATA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b KAZUSA DNA RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Japan)

Author keywords

genetic model; Genomic selection; linkage disequilibrium; marker assisted selection; plant breeding

Indexed keywords

BREEDING POPULATION; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME; HERITABILITY; PLANT BREEDING;

BREEDING; GENE LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETICS; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; METHODOLOGY; PLANT; PLANT GENOME; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; REVIEW;

BREEDING; GENETIC MARKERS; GENOME, PLANT; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; PLANTS; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI; SELECTION, GENETIC;

EID: 84868022556     PISSN: 03057364     EISSN: 10958290     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcs109     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Barendse W, Harrison BE, Bunch RJ, Thomas MB, Turner LB. 2009. Genome wide signatures of positive selection: the comparison of independent samples and the identification of regions associated to traits.BMC Genomics 10: 178. http://dx. doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-10-178.
2. Bernardo R. 2009. Genomewide selection for rapid introgression of exotic germplasm in maize. Crop Science 49: 419-425.
3. Bernardo R. 2010. Genomewide selection with minimal crossing in selfpollinated crops. Crop Science 50: 624-627.
4. Bernardo R, Yu J. 2007. Prospects for genomewide selection for quantitative trait in maize. Crop Science 47: 1082-1090.
5. Calenge F, Legarra A, Beaumont C. 2011. Genomic selection for carrierstate resistance in chicken commercial lines. BMC Proceedings 5 (Suppl. l4): S24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1753-6561-5-S4-S24.
6. Calus MP. 2010. Genomic breeding value prediction: methods and procedures Animal 4: 157-164.
7. Calus MPL, Veerkamp RF. 2007. Accuracy of breeding values when using and ignoring the polygenic effect in genomic breeding value estimation with a marker density of one SNP per cM. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124: 362-368.
8. Cleveland MA, Forni S, Deeb N, Maltecca C. 2010. Genomic breeding value prediction using three Bayesian methods and application to reduced density marker panels. BMC Proceedings 4 (Suppl 1): S6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1753- 6561-4-S1-S6.
9. Crossa J, Campos G, de L, Pe'rez P, et al. 2010. Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics 186: 713-724.
10. Dudley JW, Johnson GR. 2009. Epistatic models improve prediction of performance in corn. Crop Science 49: 763-770.
11. Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Sun Q, et al. 2011. A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE 6: pe19379. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019379.
12. Fisher RA. 1918. The correlation between relatives on the supposition on Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399-433.
13. Garris AJ, McCouch SR, Kresovich S. 2003. Population structure and its effect on haplotype diversity and linkage disequilibrium surrounding the xa5 locus of rice (Oryza sativa L.) Genetics 165: 759-769.
14. Gaut BS, Long AD. 2003. The lowdown on linkage disequilibrium. The Plant Cell 15: 1502-1506.
15. Gianola D, Fernando RL. 1986. Bayesian methods in animal breeding theory. Journal of Animal Science 63: 217-244.
16. Goddard M. 2009. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximization of long term selection. Genetica 136: 245-257.
17. Goddard ME, Hayes BJ. 2007. Genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124: 323-330.
18. Gonza'lez-Marti'nez SC, Brown GR, Ersoz E, et al. 2004. Nucleotide diversity, linkage disequilibrium and adaptive variation in natural populations of loblolly pine. Plant & Animal Genomes XII Conference, 10-14 January 2004, San Diego, CA, W3.
19. Grattapaglia D, Resende MDV, Resende MR, et al. 2011. Genomic selection for growth traits in Eucalyptus: accuracy within and across breeding populations. BMC Proceedings 5 (Suppl. 7): O16.
20. Guo Z, Tucker DM, Lu J, Kishore V, Gay G. 2011. Evaluation of genomewide selection efficiency in maize nested association mapping populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 124: 261-275.
21. Gupta PK, Pawan S, Kulwal PL. 2005. Linkage disequilibrium and association studies in higher plants: present status and future prospects. Plant Molecular Biology 57: 461-485.
22. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers CM. 2009. Genomic selection using lowdensity marker panels. Genetics 182: 343-353.
23. Harris BL, Johnson DL, Spelman RL. 2008. Genomic selection in New Zealand and the implications for national genetic evaluation. Proceedings of the Interbull Meeting, 16-19 June 2008, Niagara Falls, Canada.
24. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME. 2009. Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 433-443.
25. Heffner EL, Sorrells ME, Jannink J-L. 2009. Genomic selection for crop improvement. Crop Science 49: 1-12.
26. Heffner EL, Lorenz AJ, Jannink J-L, Sorrells ME. 2010. Plant breeding with genomic selection: gain per unit time and cost. Crop Science 50:1681-1690.
27. Heffner EL, Jannink J-L, Iwata H, Souza E, Sorrells ME. 2011. Genomic selection accuracy for grain quality traits in biparental wheat populations. Crop Science 51: 2597-2606.
28. Henderson CR. 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation prediction under a Selection Model. Biometrics 31 423
29. Hu Z, Li Y, Song X, et al. 2011. Genomic value prediction for quantitative traits under the epistatic model. BMC Genetics 12: 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-12-15.
30. Isik F, Whetten R, Zapata-Valenzuela J, Ogut F, McKeand S. 2011. Genomic selection in loblolly pine - from lab to field. BMC Proceedings 5 (Suppl. 7): I8.
31. Isobe S, Nakaya A, Tabata S. 2007. Genotype Matrix Mapping (GMM): searching for QTL interactions in genetic variation in complex traits. DNA Research 14: 217-225.
32. Iwata H, Jannink J-L. 2010. Marker genotype imputation in a low-marker-density panel with a high-marker density reference panel: accuracy evaluation in barley breeding lines. Crop Science 50: 1269-1278.
33. Iwata H, Jannink J-L. 2011. Accuracy of genomic selection prediction in barley breeding programs: a simulation study based on the real single nucleotide polymorphism data of barley breeding lines. Crop Science 51: 1915-1927.
34. Jannink J-L. 2010. Dynamics of long-term genomic selection. Genetics Selection Evolution 42: 35.
35. Jannink J-L, Lorenz AJ, Iwata H. 2010. Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Briefings in Functional Genomics and Proteomics 9: 166-177.
36. Legarra A, Robert-Granié C, Manfredi E, Elsen JM. 2008. Performance ofgenomic selection in mice. Genetics 180: 611-618.
37. Li Y, Li Y, Wu S, et al. 2007. Estimation of multilocus linkage disequilibria in diploid populations with dominant markers. Genetics 176: 1811-1821.
38. Lorenzana RE, Bernardo R. 2009. Accuracy of genotypic value predictions for marker-based selection in biparental plant populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 120: 151-161.
39. Luan T, Woolliams JA, Lien S, Kent M, Svendsen M, Meuwissen TH. 2009. The accuracy of genomic selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation. Genetics 183: 1119-1126.
40. Malmberg RL, Held S, Waits A, Mauricio R. 2005. Epistasis for fitnessrelated quantitative traits in Arabidopsis thaliana grown in the field and in the greenhouse. Genetics 171: 2013-2027.
41. Mayor PJ, Bernardo R. 2009. Genomewide selection and marker-assisted recurrent selection in doubled haploid versus F2 populations. Crop Science 49: 1719-1725.
42. Mei HW, Li KZ, Shu QY, et al. 2005. Gene actions of QTLs affecting several agronomic traits resolved in a recombinant inbred rice population and two backcross populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110: 649-659.
43. Meuwissen THE. 2007. Genomic selection marker assisted selection on Genome Wide Scale. Journal Of Animal Breeding Genetics 124321-322
44. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157: 1819-1829.
45. Miller MR, Dunham JP, Amores A, Cresko WA, Johnson EA. 2007. Rapid and cost-effective polymorphism identification and genotyping using restriction site associated DNA (RAD) markers. Genome Research 17: 240-248.
46. Moser G, Tier B, Crump RE, Khatkar MS, Raadsma HW. 2009. A comparison of five methods to predict genomic breeding values of dairy bulls from genome-wide SNP markers. Genetics Selection Evolution 41: 56.
47. Mujibi FDN, Nkumah JD, Durunna ON, et al. 2011. Accuracy of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in crossbred beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 89: 3353-3361.
48. Palaisa KA, Morgante M, Williams M, Rafalski A. 2003. Contrasting effects of selection on sequence diversity and linkage disequilibrium at two phytoene synthase loci. The Plant Cell 15: 1795-1806.
49. Piepho HP. 2009. Ridge regression and extensions for genomewide selection in maize. Crop Science 49: 1165-1176.
50. Piyasatin N, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM. 2007. Genomic selection for marker-assisted improvement in line crosses. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 115: 665-674.
51. Remington DL, Thornsberry JM, Matsuoka Y, et al. 2001. Structure of linkage disequilibrium and phenotypic associations in the maize genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98: 11479-11484.
52. Resende MFR Jr, Valle PRM, Acosta JJ, Resende MDV, Grattapaglia D, Kirst M. 2011. Stability of genomic selection prediction models across ages and environments. BMC Proceedings 5 (Suppl. 7): O14.
53. Rolf MM, Taylor JF, Schnabel RD, et al. 2010. Impact of reduced marker set estimation of genomic relationship matrices on genomic selection for feed efficiency in Angus cattle. BMC Genetics 11: 24. http://dx. doi.org/10.1186/ 1471-2156-11-24.
54. Solberg TR, Sonesson AK, Woolliams JA, Meuwissen THE. 2008. Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. Journal of Animal Science 86: 2447-2454.
55. Thomas D. 2010. Gene-environment-wide association studies: emerging approaches. Nature Reviews Genetics 11: 259-272.
56. Toosi A, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM. 2009. Genomic selection in admixed and crossbred populations. Journal of Animal Science 88: 32-46.
57. Van Ooijen. 2004. MapQTLw 5, software for the mapping of quantitative trait loci in experimental populations. Kyazma B.V., Wageningen, The Netherlands.
58. Van Raden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, et al. 2009. Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holsein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 16-24.
59. Van Vleck LD, Hakim AF, Cundiff LV, Koch RM, Crouse JD, Boldman KG. 1992. Estimated breeding values for meat characteristics of crossbred cattle with an animal model. Journal of Animal Science 70:363-371.
60. Wakamiya I, Newton R, Johnston JS, Price HJ. 1993. Genome size and environmental factors in the genus Pinus. American Journal of Botany 80:1235-1241.
61. Wang S, Basten CJ, Zeng Z-B. 2011. Windows QTL Cartographer 2.5. Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC USA.
62. van der Werf J. 2007. Animal breeding and the black box of biology. Animal Breeding and Genetics 124: 101.
63. Williams KS, Cummings MR. 1997. Concepts of genetics, 5th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
64. Wolc A, Stricker C, Arango J, et al. 2011. Breeding value prediction for production traits in layer chickens using pedigree or genomic relationships in a reduced animal model. Genetics Selection Evolution 43: 5.
65. Wong CK, Bernardo R. 2008. Genomewide selection in oil palm: increasing selection gain per unit time and cost with small populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 116: 815-824.
66. Xu S, Jia Z. 2007. Genomewide analysis of epistatic effects for quantitative traits in barley. Genetics 175: 1955-1963.
67. Xu Y, Crouch JH. 2008. Marker-assisted selection in plant breeding: from publication to practice. Crop Science 48: 391-407.
68. Zhong S, Dekkers JCM, Fernando RL, Jannink J-L. 2009. Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a barley case study. Genetics 182: 355-364.