Exploration of genetic architecture through sib-ship reconstruction in advanced breeding population of Eucalyptus nitens

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 9, 2017, Pages

  Klápště, Jaroslav ^a   Suontama, Mari ^a   Telfer, Emily ^a   Graham, Natalie ^a   Low, Charlie ^a   Stovold, Toby ^a   McKinley, Russel ^a   Dungey, Heidi ^a  

^a SCION   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST; EUCALYPTUS; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HEIGHT; HERITABILITY; HUMAN; INBREEDING DEPRESSION; NONHUMAN; PEDIGREE; RIGIDITY; THINKING; AUSTRALIA; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; GENETIC VARIATION; GENETICS; INBREEDING; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PLANT BREEDING;

AUSTRALIA; EUCALYPTUS; GENETIC VARIATION; INBREEDING; MODELS, GENETIC; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PLANT BREEDING;

EID: 85029749622     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185137     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Addison Wesley Longman: Essex; 1996.
2. Malécot G. mathématiques de l’hérédité. 1948.
3. Wright S. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. American Naturalist 1922:330–338. https://doi.org/10.1086/279872
4. Huber DA, White TL, Hodge GR. The efficiency of half-sib, half-diallel and circular mating designs in the estimation of genetic parameters in forestry: a simulation. Forest science 1992, 38(4):757–776.
5. Butcher PA, Williams ER. Variation in outcrossing rates and growth in Eucalyptus camaldulensis from the Petford Region, Queensland; evidence of outbreeding depression. Silvae Genetica 2002, 51(1):6–12.
6. Cannon P, Shelbourne C. Forward selection plots in breeding programmes with insect-pollinated tree species. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 1993, 23(1):3–9.
7. Askew G, El-Kassaby Y. Estimation of relationship coefficients among progeny derived from wind-pollinated orchard seeds. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 1994, 88(2):267–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00225908 PMID: 24185937
8. El-Kassaby YA, Cappa EP, Liewlaksaneeyanawin C, Klápště J, Lstibůrek M. Breeding without breeding: is a complete pedigree necessary for efficient breeding. PLoS One 2011, 6(10):e25737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025737 PMID: 21991342
9. Korecký J, Klápště J, Lstibůrek M, Kobliha J, Nelson CD, El-Kassaby YA. Comparison of genetic parameters from marker-based relationship, sibship, and combined models in Scots pine multi-site open-pollinated tests. Tree genetics & genomes 2013, 9(5):1227–1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11295-013-0630-z
10. Doerksen TK, Herbinger CM. Impact of reconstructed pedigrees on progeny-test breeding values in red spruce. Tree Genetics & Genomes 2010, 6(4):591–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-010-0274-1
11. Dutkowski, G and Gilmour, AR and Borralho, NMG Modification of the additive relationship matrix for open pollinated trials. Developing the Eucalypt of the Future. 10-15 September 2001, Valdivia, Chile.
12. Squillace A. E. Average genetic correlations among offspring from open-pollinated forest trees. Silvae Genetica 1974, 23:149–156.
13. Henderson C. Use of an average numerator relationship matrix for multiple-sire joining. Journal of Animal Science 1988, 66(7):1614–1621. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.6671614x
14. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Molecular ecology 2007, 16(5):1099–1106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x PMID: 17305863
15. Jones OR, Wang J. COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Molecular ecology resources 2010, 10(3):551–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02787.x PMID: 21565056
16. Jones AG. GERUD 2.0: a computer program for the reconstruction of parental genotypes from half-sib progeny arrays with known or unknown parents. Molecular Ecology Notes 2005, 5(3):708–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01029.x
17. Smith BR, Herbinger CM, Merry HR. Accurate partition of individuals into full-sib families from genetic data without parental information. Genetics 2001, 158(3):1329–1338. PMID: 11454779
18. Hadfield J, Richardson D, Burke T. Towards unbiased parentage assignment: combining genetic, behavioural and spatial data in a Bayesian framework. Molecular Ecology 2006, 15(12):3715–3730. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03050.x PMID: 17032269
19. Lambeth C, Lee B-C, O’Malley D, Wheeler N. Polymix breeding with parental analysis of progeny: an alternative to full-sib breeding and testing. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 2001, 103(6-7):930–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220100627
20. Creel S, Rosenblatt E. Using pedigree reconstruction to estimate population size: genotypes are more than individually unique marks. Ecology and evolution 2013, 3(5):1294–1304. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.538 PMID: 23762516
21. Aykanat T, Johnston SE, Cotter D, Cross TF, Poole R, Prodőhl PA, Reed T, Rogan G, McGinnity P, Primmer CR. Molecular pedigree reconstruction and estimation of evolutionary parameters in a wild Atlantic salmon river system with incomplete sampling: a power analysis. BMC evolutionary biology 2014, 14(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-14-68
22. Thomas SC, Hill WG. Estimating quantitative genetic parameters using sibships reconstructed from marker data. Genetics 2000, 155(4):1961–1972. PMID: 10924488
23. Vidal M, Plomion C, Harvengt L, Raffin A, Boury C, Bouffier L. Paternity recovery in two maritime pine polycross mating designs and consequences for breeding. Tree Genetics & Genomes 2015, 11(5):1–13.
24. Telfer EJ, Stovold GT, Li Y, Silva-Junior OB, Grattapaglia DG, Dungey HS. Parentage Reconstruction in Eucalyptus nitens Using SNPs and Microsatellite Markers: A Comparative Analysis of Marker Data Power and Robustness. PloS one 2015, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130601
25. Hansen OK, McKinney LV. Establishment of a quasi-field trial in Abies nordmanniana — test of a new approach to forest tree breeding. Tree genetics & genomes 2010, 6(2):345–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-009-0253-6
26. Grattapaglia D, Ribeiro V, Rezende GDS. Retrospective selection of elite parent trees using paternity testing with microsatellite markers: an alternative short term breeding tactic for Eucalyptus. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 2004, 109(1):192–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1617-9 PMID: 15004676
27. Klápště J, Lstibůrek M, El-Kassaby YA. Estimates of genetic parameters and breeding values from western larch open-pollinated families using marker-based relationship. Tree genetics & genomes 2014, 10(2):241–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-013-0673-1
28. Cappa EP, Klápště J, Garcia MN, Villalba PV, Poltri SNM. SSRs, SNPs and DArTs comparison on estimation of relatedness and genetic parameters’ precision from a small half-sib sample population of Eucalyptus grandis. Molecular Breeding 2016, 36(7):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-016-0522-7
29. Dungey HS, Shula B, Suontama M, Li Y, Low C, Stovold T. Quantitative genetics and developments in Scion’s tree breeding programmes. New Zealand Journal of Forestry. 2015; 60(1):12–16.
30. King J, Wilcox M. Family tests as a basis for the genetic improvement of Eucalyptus nitens in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 1988, 18(3):253–266.
31. Telfer E, Graham N, Stanbra L, Manley T, Wilcox P. Extraction of high purity genomic DNA from pine for use in a high-throughput Genotyping Platform. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 2013, 43 (1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1179-5395-43-3
32. Silva-Junior OB, Faria DA, Grattapaglia D. A flexible multi-species genome-wide 60K SNP chip developed from pooled resequencing of 240 Eucalyptus tree genomes across 12 species. New Phytologist 2015, 206(4):1527–1540. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13322 PMID: 25684350
33. Smith DM. Maximum moisture content method for determining specific gravity of small wood samples. Madison, Wis.: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory; 1954.
34. Treloar C, Lausberg M. Sampling and data handling techniques for wood quality analyses. FRI Bulletin No. 201, Proceedings of Wood Quality Workshop’95, pp 1-8.
35. Wang J. Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics 2004, 166(4):1963–1979. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.166.4.1963 PMID: 15126412
36. Huisman J. Pedigree reconstruction from SNP data: parentage assignment, sibship clustering and beyond. Molecular Ecology Resources 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12665 PMID: 28271620
37. Weir BS. Inferences about linkage disequilibrium. Biometrics 1979:235–254. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529947 PMID: 497335
38. Butler DG, Cullis BR, Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ. ASReml-R reference manual. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Queensland, Australia 2009.
39. Mrode RA. Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. Cabi; 2014.
40. Welch BL. The generalization of student’s’ problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika. 1947 Jan 1; 34(1/2):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/34.1-2.28 PMID: 20287819
41. Caballero A, Toro MA. Interrelations between effective population size and other pedigree tools for the management of conserved populations. Genetical research. 2000 Jun 1; 75(03):331–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672399004449 PMID: 10893869
42. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B. Quantitative genetics in plants: the effect of the breeding system on genetic variability. Evolution. 1995 Oct 1:911–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1995.tb02326.xPMID: 28564864
43. Burdon R, Shelbourne C. Breeding populations for recurrent selection: conflicts and possible solutions. New Zealand journal of forestry science 1971.
44. El-Kassaby YA, Lstibůrek M. Breeding without breeding. Genetics research 2009, 91(02):111–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001667230900007X PMID: 19393127
45. Lstibůrek M, Ivanková K, Kadlec J, Kobliha J, Klápště J, El-Kassaby YA. Breeding without breeding: minimum fingerprinting effort with respect to the effective population size. Tree genetics & genomes 2011, 7(5):1069–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-011-0395-1
46. Lstibůrek M, Klápště J, Kobliha J, El-Kassaby YA. Breeding without Breeding: Effect of gene flow on fingerprinting effort. Tree genetics & genomes 2012, 8(4):873–877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-012-0472-0
47. Visscher PM, Medland SE, Ferreira MA, Morley KI, Zhu G, Cornes BK, Montgomery GW, Martin NG. Assumption-free estimation of heritability from genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing between full siblings. PLoS genetics 2006, 24; 2(3):e41. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020041 PMID: 16565746
48. Wang J. Pedigrees or markers: Which are better in estimating relatedness and inbreeding coefficient?. Theoretical population biology 2016, 29; 107:4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tpb.2015.08.006 PMID: 26344786
49. Bush D, Kain D, Kanowski P, Matheson C. Genetic parameter estimates informed by a marker-based pedigree: a case study with Eucalyptus cladocalyx in southern Australia. Tree genetics & genomes 2015, 11(1):798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-014-0798-x
50. Karkkainen K, Koski V, Savolainen O. Geographical variation in the inbreeding depression of Scots pine. Evolution 1996:111–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb04477.x PMID: 28568853
51. Sorensen FC, Miles RS. Inbreeding depression in height, height growth, and survival of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and noble fir to 10 years of age. Forest Science 1982, 28(2):283–292.
52. Williams CG, Savolainen O. Inbreeding depression in conifers: implications for breeding strategy. Forest Science 1996, 42(1):102–117.
53. Hardner C, Potts B. Inbreeding depression and changes in variation after selfing in Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus. Silvae Genetica 1995, 44(1):46–54.
54. Hardner C, Tibbits W. Inbreeding depression for growth, wood and fecundity traits in Eucalyptus nitens. Forest Genetics 1998, 5:11–20.
55. Orr-Ewing AL. Inbreeding experiments with the Douglas fir. The Forestry Chronicle 1954, 30(1):7–20. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc30007-1
56. Gezan SA, White TL, Huber DA. Comparison of experimental designs for clonal forestry using simulated data. Forest Science 2006, 52(1):108–116.
57. Nazarian A, Gezan SA. Integrating Nonadditive Genomic Relationship Matrices into the Study of Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits. Journal of Heredity 2015:esv096.
58. Su G, Christensen OF, Ostersen T, Henryon M, Lund MS. Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and predicting genetic merits using genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers. PloS one 2012, 7(9):e45293. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0045293 PMID: 23028912
59. Muñoz PR, Resende MF, Gezan SA, Resende MDV, de los Campos G, Kirst M, Huber D, Peter GF. Unraveling Additive from Nonadditive Effects Using Genomic Relationship Matrices. Genetics 2014, 198(4):1759–1768. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.171322 PMID: 25324160
60. Baltunis BS, Wu HX, Dungey HS, Brawner JT. Comparisons of genetic parameters and clonal value predictions from clonal trials and seedling base population trials of radiata pine. Tree genetics & genomes 2009, 5(1):269–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-008-0172-y
61. Costa e Silva J, Dutkowski GW, Gilmour AR. Analysis of early tree height in forest genetic trials is enhanced by including a spatially correlated residual. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 2001, 31 (11):1887–1893. https://doi.org/10.1139/x01-123
62. Gamal El-Dien O, Ratcliffe B, Klápště J, Porth I, Chen C, El-Kassaby YA. Implementation of the Realized Genomic Relationship Matrix to Open-Pollinated White Spruce Family Testing for Disentangling Additive from Non-additive Genetic Effects. G3: Genes—Genomes—Genetics 2016, 6(3):743–753. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.025957 PMID: 26801647
63. Marchal A, Legarra A, Tisné S, Carasco-Lacombe C, Manez A, Suryana E, Omoré A, Nouy B, Durand-Gasselin T, Sánchez L. Multivariate genomic model improves analysis of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) progeny tests. Molecular Breeding 2016, 36(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-015-0423-1
64. Jia Y, Jannink J-L. Multiple-trait genomic selection methods increase genetic value prediction accuracy. Genetics 2012, 192(4):1513–1522. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.144246 PMID: 23086217
65. Bijma P, Bastiaansen JW. Standard error of the genetic correlation: how much data do we need to estimate a purebred-crossbred genetic correlation? Genetics Selection Evolution 2014, 46(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-014-0079-z