4.7 Article

Genomewide predictions from maize single-cross data

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 126, 期 1, 页码 13-22

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-012-1955-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maize (Zea mays L.) breeders evaluate many single-cross hybrids each year in multiple environments. Our objective was to determine the usefulness of genomewide predictions, based on marker effects from maize single-cross data, for identifying the best untested single crosses and the best inbreds within a biparental cross. We considered 479 experimental maize single crosses between 59 Iowa Stiff Stalk Synthetic (BSSS) inbreds and 44 non-BSSS inbreds. The single crosses were evaluated in multilocation experiments from 2001 to 2009 and the BSSS and non-BSSS inbreds had genotypic data for 669 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. Single-cross performance was predicted by a previous best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) approach that utilized marker-based relatedness and information on relatives, and from genomewide marker effects calculated by ridge-regression BLUP (RR-BLUP). With BLUP, the mean prediction accuracy (r (MG)) of single-cross performance was 0.87 for grain yield, 0.90 for grain moisture, 0.69 for stalk lodging, and 0.84 for root lodging. The BLUP and RR-BLUP models did not lead to r (MG) values that differed significantly. We then used the RR-BLUP model, developed from single-cross data, to predict the performance of testcrosses within 14 biparental populations. The r (MG) values within each testcross population were generally low and were often negative. These results were obtained despite the above-average level of linkage disequilibrium, i.e., r (2) between adjacent markers of 0.35 in the BSSS inbreds and 0.26 in the non-BSSS inbreds. Overall, our results suggested that genomewide marker effects estimated from maize single crosses are not advantageous (compared with BLUP) for predicting single-cross performance and have erratic usefulness for predicting testcross performance within a biparental cross.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据