4.6 Article

Genomic prediction contributing to a promising global strategy to turbocharge gene banks

期刊

NATURE PLANTS
卷 2, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/NPLANTS.2016.150

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative competitive grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2011-03587]
  2. National Science Foundation [IOS-1238142]
  3. Kansas State University Center for Sorghum Improvement
  4. Iowa State University Raymond F. Baker Center for Plant Breeding
  5. Iowa State University Plant Science Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 7.4 million plant accessions in gene banks are largely underutilized due to various resource constraints, but current genomic and analytic technologies are enabling us to mine this natural heritage. Here we report a proof-of-concept study to integrate genomic prediction into a broad germplasm evaluation process. First, a set of 962 biomass sorghum accessions were chosen as a reference set by germplasm curators. With high throughput genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), we genetically characterized this reference set with 340,496 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A set of 299 accessions was selected as the training set to represent the overall diversity of the reference set, and we phenotypically characterized the training set for biomass yield and other related traits. Cross-validation with multiple analytical methods using the data of this training set indicated high prediction accuracy for biomass yield. Empirical experiments with a 200-accession validation set chosen from the reference set confirmed high prediction accuracy. The potential to apply the prediction model to broader genetic contexts was also examined with an independent population. Detailed analyses on prediction reliability provided new insights into strategy optimization. The success of this project illustrates that a global, cost-effective strategy may be designed to assess the vast amount of valuable germplasm archived in 1,750 gene banks.

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