4.5 Article

Potential and Optimization of Genomic Selection for Fusarium Head Blight Resistance in Six-Row Barley

Journal

CROP SCIENCE
Volume 52, Issue 4, Pages 1609-1621

Publisher

CROP SCIENCE SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2011.09.0503

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture [2006-55606-16722, 2009-65300-05661, 2011-68002-30029]
  2. U.S. Department of Agriculture [59-0206-9-072]
  3. U.S. Wheat & Barley Scab Initiative

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a devastating disease of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), causing reductions in yield and quality. Marker-based selection for resistance to FHB and lowered deoxynivalenol (DON) grain concentration would save considerable costs and time associated with phenotyping. A marker-based selection approach called genomic selection (GS) uses genomewide marker information to predict genetic value. We used a cross-validation approach that separated training sets from validation sets by both entry and environment. We used this framework to test the potential of GS for genetic improvement of FHB and DON as well as test the effect of different factors on prediction accuracy. Prediction accuracy for FHB was found to be as high as 0.72 and that for DON was found to be as high as 0.68. Little difference was found between marker effect estimation methods in terms of prediction of entry genetic value. The extensive linkage disequilibrium (LD) present in this population allowed the marker set to be reduced to 384 markers and training population (TP) size to be reduced 200 with little effect on prediction accuracy. We found little to no advantage to combining subpopulations that correspond to neighboring breeding programs to increase TP size. Apparently, little genetic information is shared between subpopulations, either because of different marker-quantitative trait loci (QTL) linkage phases, different segregating QTL, or nonadditive gene action.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available