4.7 Article

Training set optimization under population structure in genomic selection

期刊

THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS
卷 128, 期 1, 页码 145-158

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00122-014-2418-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Regional Ministry of Economy, Innovation and Science of Andalusia, Spain
  2. National Research Initiative Competitive Grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2011-68002-30029]
  3. Hatch project [149-449]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Population structure must be evaluated before optimization of the training set population. Maximizing the phenotypic variance captured by the training set is important for optimal performance. The optimization of the training set (TRS) in genomic selection has received much interest in both animal and plant breeding, because it is critical to the accuracy of the prediction models. In this study, five different TRS sampling algorithms, stratified sampling, mean of the coefficient of determination (CDmean), mean of predictor error variance (PEVmean), stratified CDmean (StratCDmean) and random sampling, were evaluated for prediction accuracy in the presence of different levels of population structure. In the presence of population structure, the most phenotypic variation captured by a sampling method in the TRS is desirable. The wheat dataset showed mild population structure, and CDmean and stratified CDmean methods showed the highest accuracies for all the traits except for test weight and heading date. The rice dataset had strong population structure and the approach based on stratified sampling showed the highest accuracies for all traits. In general, CDmean minimized the relationship between genotypes in the TRS, maximizing the relationship between TRS and the test set. This makes it suitable as an optimization criterion for long-term selection. Our results indicated that the best selection criterion used to optimize the TRS seems to depend on the interaction of trait architecture and population structure.

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