Erratum: Incomplete dominance of deleterious alleles contributes substantially to trait variation and heterosis in maize (PLoS Genet (2017) 13:9 (e1007019) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007019);Incomplete dominance of deleterious alleles contributes substantially to trait variation and heterosis in maize

PLoS Genetics

Volumn 13, Issue 9, 2017, Pages

  Yang, Jinliang ^a,f   Mezmouk, Sofiane ^a,g   Baumgarten, Andy ^b   Buckler, Edward S ^c   Guill, Katherine E ^c   McMullen, Michael D ^c,d   Mumm, Rita H ^e   Ross Ibarra, Jeffrey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b DUPONT COMPANY   (United States)

^c AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^g KWS SAAT SE   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; GRAIN YIELD; HAPLOTYPE; HETEROSIS; HUMAN; IDENTITY; LANDRACE; MAIZE; NONHUMAN; PLANT BREEDING; PREDICTION; THEORETICAL STUDY; VALIDATION PROCESS; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; DNA SEQUENCE; DOMINANT GENE; GENETICS; GENOMICS; GENOTYPING TECHNIQUE; PHENOTYPE; PLANT GENOME; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM;

PLANT DNA;

ALLELES; DNA, PLANT; GENES, DOMINANT; GENOME, PLANT; GENOMICS; GENOTYPING TECHNIQUES; HAPLOTYPES; HYBRID VIGOR; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; PLANT BREEDING; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA; ZEA MAYS;

EID: 85031316293     PISSN: 15537390     EISSN: 15537404     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009825     Document Type: Erratum

References (77)

1. Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD, The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2007;8(8):610–618. doi: 10.1038/nrg2146 17637733
2. Mitchell-Olds T, Willis JH, Goldstein DB, Which evolutionary processes influence natural genetic variation for phenotypic traits?Nature Reviews Genetics. 2007;8(11):845–856. 17943192
3. Simons YB, Turchin MC, Pritchard JK, Sella G, The deleterious mutation load is insensitive to recent population history. Nature genetics. 2014;46(3):220. doi: 10.1038/ng.2896 24509481
4. Beissinger TM, Wang L, Crosby K, Durvasula A, Hufford MB, Ross-Ibarra J, Recent demography drives changes in linked selection across the maize genome. Nature Plants. 2016;2(7):16084. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2016.84 27294617
5. Laenen B, Tedder A, Nowak MD, Toräng P, Wunder J, Wötzel S, et al. Demography And Mating System Shape The Genome-Wide Impact Of Purifying Selection In Arabis alpina. bioRxiv. 2017; p. 127209.
6. Peischl S, Dupanloup I, Foucal A, Jomphe M, Bruat V, Grenier JC, et al. Relaxed selection during a recent human expansion. bioRxiv. 2016; p. 064691.
7. Lohmueller KE, The impact of population demography and selection on the genetic architecture of complex traits. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(5):e1004379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004379 24875776
8. Uricchio LH, Zaitlen NA, Ye CJ, Witte JS, Hernandez RD, Selection and explosive growth alter genetic architecture and hamper the detection of causal rare variants. Genome research. 2016;26:863–873. doi: 10.1101/gr.202440.115 27197206
9. Sanjak J, Long AD, Thornton KR. The Genetic Architecture of a Complex Trait is more Sensitive to Genetic Model than Population Growth. bioRxiv. 2016;
10. Nannas NJ, Dawe RK, Genetic and genomic toolbox of Zea mays. Genetics. 2015;199(3):655–669. doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.165183 25740912
11. Birchler JA, Auger DL, Riddle NC, In search of the molecular basis of heterosis. The Plant Cell. 2003;15(10):2236–2239. doi: 10.1105/tpc.151030 14523245
12. Crow JF, 90 years ago: the beginning of hybrid maize. Genetics. 1998;148(3):923–928. 9539413
13. Wang L, Beissinger TM, Lorant A, Ross-Ibarra C, Ross-Ibarra J, Hufford M. The interplay of demography and selection during maize domestication and expansion. bioRxiv. 2017; p. 114579.
14. van Heerwaarden J, Hufford MB, Ross-Ibarra J, Historical genomics of North American maize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(31):12420–12425. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209275109
15. Chia JM, Song C, Bradbury PJ, Costich D, de Leon N, Doebley J, et al. Maize HapMap2 identifies extant variation from a genome in flux. Nat Genet. 2012;44(7):803–7. doi: 10.1038/ng.2313 22660545
16. McMullen MD, Kresovich S, Villeda HS, Bradbury P, Li H, Sun Q, et al. Genetic properties of the maize nested association mapping population. Science. 2009;325(5941):737–740. doi: 10.1126/science.1174320 19661427
17. Gore Ma, Chia JM, Elshire RJ, Sun Q, Ersoz ES, Hurwitz BL, et al. A first-generation haplotype map of maize. Science (New York, NY). 2009;326(5956):1115–7. doi: 10.1126/science.1177837
18. Gerke JP, Edwards JW, Guill KE, Ross-Ibarra J, McMullen MD, The genomic impacts of drift and selection for hybrid performance in maize. Genetics. 2015;201(3):1201–1211. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.182410 26385980
19. Mezmouk S, Ross-Ibarra J, The pattern and distribution of deleterious mutations in maize. G3 (Bethesda, Md). 2014;4(January):163–71. doi: 10.1534/g3.113.008870
20. Crow JF, 90 years ago: the beginning of hybrid maize. Genetics. 1998;148(3):923–928. 9539413
21. Charlesworth D, Willis JH, The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nature reviews Genetics. 2009;10(11):783–96. doi: 10.1038/nrg2664 19834483
22. Garcia AAF, Wang S, Melchinger AE, Zeng ZB, Quantitative trait loci mapping and the genetic basis of heterosis in maize and rice. Genetics. 2008;180(3):1707–1724. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.082867 18791260
23. Xiao J, Li J, Yuan L, Tanksley SD, Dominance is the major genetic basis of heterosis in rice as revealed by QTL analysis using molecular markers. Genetics. 1995;140(2):745–754. 7498751
24. Yao H, Gray AD, Auger DL, Birchler JA, Genomic dosage effects on heterosis in triploid maize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(7):2665–2669. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221966110
25. Birchler JA, Yao H, Chudalayandi S, Vaiman D, Veitia RA, Heterosis. The Plant Cell. 2010;22(7):2105–2112. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.076133 20622146
26. Krieger U, Lippman ZB, Zamir D, The flowering gene SINGLE FLOWER TRUSS drives heterosis for yield in tomato. Nature genetics. 2010;42(5):459–463. doi: 10.1038/ng.550 20348958
27. Huang X, Yang S, Gong J, Zhao Q, Feng Q, Zhan Q, et al. Genomic architecture of heterosis for yield traits in rice. Nature. 2016;537(7622):629–633. doi: 10.1038/nature19760 27602511
28. Larièpe a, Mangin B, Jasson S, Combes V, Dumas F, Jamin P, et al. The genetic basis of heterosis: multiparental quantitative trait loci mapping reveals contrasted levels of apparent overdominance among traits of agronomical interest in maize (Zea mays L.). Genetics. 2012;190(2):795–811. doi: 10.1534/genetics.111.133447 22135356
29. Mikel MA, Dudley JW, Evolution of North American dent corn from public to proprietary germplasm. Crop science. 2006;46(3):1193–1205. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2005.10-0371
30. Macke JA, Bohn MO, Rausch KD, Mumm RH, Genetic Factors Underlying Dry-Milling Efficiency and Flaking-Grit Yield Examined in US Maize Germplasm. Crop Science. 2016;56(5):2516–2526. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2016.01.0024
31. Cooper GM, Stone Ea, Asimenos G, Green ED, Batzoglou S, Sidow A, Distribution and intensity of constraint in mammalian genomic sequence. Genome research. 2005;15(7):901–13. doi: 10.1101/gr.3577405 15965027
32. Habier D, Fernando RL, Kizilkaya K, Garrick DJ, Extension of the Bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC bioinformatics. 2011;12(1):186. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-12-186 21605355
33. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longman; 1996. Available from: http://books.google.de/books?id=7ASZNAEACAAJ.
34. Doyle J, Doyle J, Genomic plant DNA preparation from fresh tissue-CTAB method. Phytochem Bull. 1987;19(11):11–15.
35. Li H, Durbin R, Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(14):1754–60. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp324 19451168
36. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(16):2078–9. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 19505943
37. Romay MC, Millard MJ, Glaubitz JC, Peiffer JA, Swarts KL, Casstevens TM, et al. Comprehensive genotyping of the USA national maize inbred seed bank. Genome Biol. 2013;14(6):R55. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-6-r55 23759205
38. Glaubitz JC, Casstevens TM, Lu F, Harriman J, Elshire RJ, Sun Q, et al. TASSEL-GBS: a high capacity genotyping by sequencing analysis pipeline. PloS one. 2014;9(2):e90346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090346 24587335
39. Davydov EV, Goode DL, Sirota M, Cooper GM, Sidow A, Batzoglou S, Identifying a high fraction of the human genome to be under selective constraint using GERP++. PLoS computational biology. 2010;6(12):e1001025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001025 21152010
40. Rodgers-Melnick E, Bradbury PJ, Elshire RJ, Glaubitz JC, Acharya CB, Mitchell SE, et al. Recombination in diverse maize is stable, predictable, and associated with genetic load. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112(12):3823–3828.
41. Cingolani P, Platts A, Coon M, Nguyen T, Wang L, Land SJ, et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly. 2012;6(2):80–92. doi: 10.4161/fly.19695 22728672
42. Ogut F, Bian Y, Bradbury PJ, Holland JB, Joint-multiple family linkage analysis predicts within-family variation better than single-family analysis of the maize nested association mapping population. Heredity. 2015;114(6):552. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2014.123 25585918
43. Bukowski R, Guo X, Lu Y, Zou C, He B, Rong Z, et al. Construction of the third generation Zea mays haplotype map. bioRxiv. 2015; p. 026963.
44. Da Y, Wang C, Wang S, Hu G, Mixed model methods for genomic prediction and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using SNP markers. PloS one. 2014;9(1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087666
45. Wang C, Prakapenka D, Wang S, Pulugurta S, Runesha HB, Da Y, GVCBLUP: a computer package for genomic prediction and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-270
46. Lynch M, Walsh B, et al. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. vol. 1. SinauerSunderland, MA; 1998.
47. Browning BL, Browning SR, A unified approach to genotype imputation and haplotype-phase inference for large data sets of trios and unrelated individuals. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;84(2):210–23. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.01.005 19200528
48. Wray NR, Yang J, Hayes BJ, Price AL, Goddard ME, Visscher PM, Pitfalls of predicting complex traits from SNPs. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2013;14(7):507–515. doi: 10.1038/nrg3457 23774735
49. Navarro JAR, Willcox M, Burgueño J, Romay C, Swarts K, Trachsel S, et al. A study of allelic diversity underlying flowering-time adaptation in maize landraces. Nature genetics. 2017;49(3):476–480. doi: 10.1038/ng.3784
50. Rodgers-Melnick E, Vera DL, Bass HW, Buckler ES, Open chromatin reveals the functional maize genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016;113(22):E3177–E3184. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1525244113
51. Kircher M, Witten DM, Jain P, O’roak BJ, Cooper GM, Shendure J, A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants. Nature genetics. 2014;46(3):310–315. doi: 10.1038/ng.2892 24487276
52. Haddrill PR, Halligan DL, Tomaras D, Charlesworth B, Reduced efficacy of selection in regions of the Drosophila genome that lack crossing over. Genome biology. 2007;8(2):R18. doi: 10.1186/gb-2007-8-2-r18 17284312
53. McMullen MD, Kresovich S, Villeda HS, Bradbury P, Li H, Sun Q, et al. Genetic properties of the maize nested association mapping population. Science (New York, NY). 2009;325(5941):737–40. doi: 10.1126/science.1174320
54. Buckler ES, Holland JB, Bradbury PJ, Acharya CB, Brown PJ, Browne C, et al. The genetic architecture of maize flowering time. Science. 2009;325(5941):714–718. doi: 10.1126/science.1174276 19661422
55. Peiffer JA, Romay MC, Gore MA, Flint-Garcia SA, Zhang Z, Millard MJ, et al. The genetic architecture of maize height. Genetics. 2014;196(4):1337–1356. doi: 10.1534/genetics.113.159152 24514905
56. Greenberg AJ, Hackett SR, Harshman LG, Clark AG, A hierarchical Bayesian model for a novel sparse partial diallel crossing design. Genetics. 2010;185(1):361–373. doi: 10.1534/genetics.110.115055 20157001
57. Joly-Lopez Z, Flowers JM, Purugganan MD, Developing maps of fitness consequences for plant genomes. Current opinion in plant biology. 2016;30:101–107. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2016.02.008 26950251
58. Huang Y, Gulko B, Siepel A, Fast, scalable prediction of deleterious noncoding variants from functional and population genomic data. Nature gGenetics. 2017;49(4):618. doi: 10.1038/ng.3810
59. Wallace JG, Bradbury PJ, Zhang N, Gibon Y, Stitt M, Buckler ES, Association mapping across numerous traits reveals patterns of functional variation in maize. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(12):e1004845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004845 25474422
60. East EM, Inbreeding in corn. Rep Conn Agric Exp Stn. 1908;1907:419–428.
61. Gaut BS, Díez CM, Morrell PL, Genomics and the contrasting dynamics of annual and perennial domestication. Trends in genetics. 2015;31(12):709–719. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2015.10.002 26603610
62. Phadnis N, Fry JD, Widespread correlations between dominance and homozygous effects of mutations: implications for theories of dominance. Genetics. 2005;171(1):385–392. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.039016 15972465
63. Agrawal AF, Whitlock MC, Inferences about the distribution of dominance drawn from yeast gene knockout data. Genetics. 2011;187(2):553–566. doi: 10.1534/genetics.110.124560 21098719
64. Kacser H, Burns JA, The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics. 1981;97(3-4):639–666. 7297851
65. Manna F, Martin G, Lenormand T, Fitness landscapes: an alternative theory for the dominance of mutation. Genetics. 2011;189(3):923–937. doi: 10.1534/genetics.111.132944 21890744
66. Huber CD, Durvasula A, Hancock AM, Lohmueller KE. Gene expression drives the evolution of dominance. bioRxiv. 2017; p. 182865.
67. Desta ZA, Ortiz R, Genomic selection: genome-wide prediction in plant improvement. Trends in plant science. 2014;19(9):592–601. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.05.006 24970707
68. Edwards SM, Sørensen IF, Sarup P, Mackay TF, Sørensen P, Genomic Prediction for Quantitative Traits Is Improved by Mapping Variants to Gene Ontology Categories in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 2016; p. 110–116. doi: 10.1534/genetics.116.187161
69. Kono TJ, Fu F, Mohammadi M, Hoffman PJ, Liu C, Stupar RM, et al. The role of deleterious substitutions in crop genomes. bioRxiv. 2016; p. 033175.
70. Melchinger A, Lee M, Lamkey K, Hallauer A, Woodman W, Genetic diversity for restriction fragment length polymorphisms and heterosis for two diallel sets of maize inbreds. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 1990;80(4):488–496. doi: 10.1007/BF00226750 24221007
71. Shapira R, Levy T, Shaked S, Fridman E, David L, Extensive heterosis in growth of yeast hybrids is explained by a combination of genetic models. Heredity. 2014;113(4):1–11. doi: 10.1038/hdy.2014.33
72. Shull GH, The composition of a field of maize. Journal of Heredity. 1908;1(1):296–301. doi: 10.1093/jhered/os-4.1.296
73. Gama LT, Bressan MC, Rodrigues EC, Rossato LV, Moreira OC, Alves SP, et al. Heterosis for meat quality and fatty acid profiles in crosses among Bos indicus and Bos taurus finished on pasture or grain. Meat Science. 2013;93(1):98–104. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.08.005 22938774
74. Wang L, Greaves IK, Groszmann M, Wu LM, Dennis ES, Peacock WJ, Hybrid mimics and hybrid vigor in Arabidopsis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112(35):E4959–E4967. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1514190112
75. Li Z, Li B, Tong Y, The contribution of distant hybridization with decaploid Agropyron elongatum to wheat improvement in China. Journal of Genetics and Genomics. 2008;35(8):451–456. doi: 10.1016/S1673-8527(08)60062-4 18721781
76. Halligan DL, Keightley PD, Spontaneous mutation accumulation studies in evolutionary genetics. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 2009;40:151–172. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173437
77. Guo M, Rupe MA, Wei J, Winkler C, Goncalves-Butruille M, Weers BP, et al. Maize ARGOS1 (ZAR1) transgenic alleles increase hybrid maize yield. Journal of experimental botany. 2014;65(1):249–260. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert370 24218327