4.4 Article

Moving Beyond Managing Realized Genomic Relationship in Long-Term Genomic Selection

期刊

GENETICS
卷 206, 期 2, 页码 1127-1138

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.116.194449

关键词

genomic selection; long-term gain; diversity; optimization; set selection

资金

  1. Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term genomic selection (GS) requires strategies that balance genetic gain with population diversity, to sustain progress for traits under selection, and to keep diversity for future breeding. In a simulation model for a recurrent selection scheme, we provide the first head-to-head comparison of two such existing strategies: genomic optimal contributions selection (GOCS), which limits realized genomic relationship among selection candidates, and weighted genomic selection (WGS), which upscales rare allele effects in GS. Compared to GS, both methods provide the same higher long-term genetic gain and a similar lower inbreeding rate, despite some inherent limitations. GOCS does not control the inbreeding rate component linked to trait selection, and, therefore, does not strike the optimal balance between genetic gain and inbreeding. This makes it less effective throughout the breeding scheme, and particularly so at the beginning, where genetic gain and diversity may not be competing. For WGS, truncation selection proved suboptimal to manage rare allele frequencies among the selection candidates. To overcome these limitations, we introduce two new set selection methods that maximize a weighted index balancing genetic gain with controlling expected heterozygosity (IND-HE) or maintaining rare alleles (IND-RA), and show that these outperform GOCS and WGS in a nearly identical way. While requiring further testing, we believe that the inherent benefits of the IND-HE and IND-RA methods will transfer from our simulation framework to many practical breeding settings, and are therefore a major step forward toward efficient long-term genomic selection.

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

4.4
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