4.6 Article

Comparing genomic selection and marker-assisted selection for Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

期刊

MOLECULAR BREEDING
卷 36, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-016-0508-5

关键词

Molecular breeding; Genotyping-by-sequencing; Fusarium graminearum; Marker-assisted selection; Genomic selection; Deoxynivalenol

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture [59-0206-4-029]
  2. Monsanto Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genomic selection (GS) and marker-assisted selection (MAS) rely on marker-trait associations and are both routinely used for breeding purposes. Although similar, these two approaches differ in their applications and how markers are used to estimate breeding values. In this study, GS and MAS were compared in their ability to predict six traits associated with resistance to a destructive wheat disease, Fusarium head blight (FHB). A panel consisting in 273 soft red winter wheat lines from the US Midwestern and Eastern regions was used in this study. The statistical models for MAS were built using Fhb-1, the best-studied quantitative trait loci (QTL) for FHB resistance, and two sets of QTL: one independently identified by other groups and a newer set identified in house. In contrast, genomic selection models relied on 19,992 SNPs distributed throughout the genome. For the MAS and GS models, marker effects were estimated with ordinary least square and ridge regression best unbiased linear prediction, respectively. Intermediate to high values of prediction accuracy (0.4-0.9) were observed for most GS models, with lower values (<0.3) found for MAS models. Treating QTL as fixed effects in GS models resulted in higher prediction accuracy when compared with a GS model with only random effects, but overestimated accuracies were obtained with in house QTL. For the same selection intensity, GS resulted in higher selection differentials than MAS for all traits. Our results indicate that GS is a more appropriate strategy than MAS for FHB resistance.

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

4.6
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