4.5 Article

PopVar: A Genome-Wide Procedure for Predicting Genetic Variance and Correlated Response in Biparental Breeding Populations

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 55, 期 5, 页码 2068-2077

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2015.01.0030

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Predicting genetic variances of biparental populations has been a long-standing goal for plant breeders. The ability to discriminate among crosses with similarly predicted high means but different levels of genetic variance (V-G) should improve the effectiveness of breeding. We developed a procedure that uses established progeny simulation and genomic prediction strategies to predict the population mean (mu) and V-G, the mean of the desired 10% of the progeny (superior progeny mean [mu(sp)]), and correlated responses of multiple traits for biparental populations. The proposed procedure, PopVar, is herein demonstrated using a training population (TP) composed of 383 breeding lines that have been genotyped and phenotyped for yield and deoxynivalenol (DON). Marker effects estimated from the TP were used to calculate genotypic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) of 200 simulated recombinant inbred lines (RILs) per cross. Values of mu, V-G, and mu(sp) were then calculated directly from the RIL GEBVs. We found that. explained 82 and 88% of variation in mu(sp) for yield and DON, respectively, and adding V-G to the regression model increased those respective R-2 values to 99.5 and 99.6%. The results of correlated response revealed that although yield and DON are unfavorably correlated, the correlation was near zero or slightly negative in some simulated crosses, indicating the potential to increase yield while decreasing DON. This work extends the current benefits of genomic selection to include the ability to design crosses that maximize genetic variance with more favorable correlations among traits. PopVar is available as an R package that researchers and breeders are encouraged to use for empirical evaluation of the methodology.

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

4.5
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