4.6 Article

Identification of superior parental lines for biparental crossing via genomic prediction

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243159

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 108-2118-M-002-002-MY2]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A parental selection approach based on genomic prediction has been developed to help plant breeders identify a set of superior parental lines from a candidate population before conducting field trials. A classical parental selection approach based on genomic prediction usually involves truncation selection, i.e., selecting the top fraction of accessions on the basis of their genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs). However, truncation selection inevitably results in the loss of genomic diversity during the breeding process. To preserve genomic diversity, the selection of closely related accessions should be avoided during parental selection. We thus propose a new index to quantify the genomic diversity for a set of candidate accessions, and analyze two real rice (Oryza sativa L.) genome datasets to compare several selection strategies. Our results showed that the pure truncation selection strategy produced the best starting breeding value but the least genomic diversity in the base population, leading to less genetic gain. On the other hand, strategies that considered only genomic diversity resulted in greater genomic diversity but less favorable starting breeding values, leading to more genetic gain but unsatisfactorily performing recombination inbred lines (RILs) in progeny populations. Among all strategies investigated in this study, compromised strategies, which considered both GEBVs and genomic diversity, produced the best or second-best performing RILs mainly because these strategies balance the starting breeding value with the maintenance of genomic diversity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available