The importance of phenotypic data analysis for genomic prediction - a case study comparing different spatial models in rye

BMC Genomics

Hans-Peter Piepho¹  Chris-Carolin Schön²  Manfred Schönleben²  Malthe Schmidt³  Jens Möhring¹  Angela-Maria Bernal-Vasquez¹ 

[1] Bioinformatics Unit, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstrasse 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany;Plant Breeding, Technische Universität München, Liesel-Beckmann-Strasse 2, 85354 Freising, Germany;KWS LOCHOW GMBH, Ferdinand-von-Lochow-Strasse 5, 29303 Bergen, Germany

关键词: Restricted maximum likelihood (REML);    Multi-environment trials (MET);    Spatial models;    Cross validation;    Genomic prediction;    Stage-wise analysis;   

Others  :  1216340
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2164-15-646

 received in 2014-02-21, accepted in 2014-07-30,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Genomic prediction is becoming a daily tool for plant breeders. It makes use of genotypic information to make predictions used for selection decisions. The accuracy of the predictions depends on the number of genotypes used in the calibration; hence, there is a need of combining data across years. A proper phenotypic analysis is a crucial prerequisite for accurate calibration of genomic prediction procedures. We compared stage-wise approaches to analyse a real dataset of a multi-environment trial (MET) in rye, which was connected between years only through one check, and used different spatial models to obtain better estimates, and thus, improved predictive abilities for genomic prediction. The aims of this study were to assess the advantage of using spatial models for the predictive abilities of genomic prediction, to identify suitable procedures to analyse a MET weakly connected across years using different stage-wise approaches, and to explore genomic prediction as a tool for selection of models for phenotypic data analysis.

Results

Using complex spatial models did not significantly improve the predictive ability of genomic prediction, but using row and column effects yielded the highest predictive abilities of all models. In the case of MET poorly connected between years, analysing each year separately and fitting year as a fixed effect in the genomic prediction stage yielded the most realistic predictive abilities. Predictive abilities can also be used to select models for phenotypic data analysis. The trend of the predictive abilities was not the same as the traditionally used Akaike information criterion, but favoured in the end the same models.

Conclusions

Making predictions using weakly linked datasets is of utmost interest for plant breeders. We provide an example with suggestions on how to handle such cases. Rather than relying on checks we show how to use year means across all entries for integrating data across years. It is further shown that fitting of row and column effects captures most of the heterogeneity in the field trials analysed.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bernal-Vasquez et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Meuwissen TH, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME: Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001, 157:1819-1829.
• [2]Schulz-Streeck T, Ogutu JO, Piepho HP: Comparisons of single-stage and two-stage approaches to genomic selection. Theor Appl Genet 2013, 126:69-82.
• [3]Piepho HP, Möhring J, Schulz-Streeck T, Ogutu JO: A stage-wise approach for the analysis of multi-environment trials. Biom J 2012, 54:844-860.
• [4]Burgueño J, Crossa J, Cotes JM, San Vicente F, Das B: Prediction assessment of linear mixed models for multienvironment trials. Crop Sci 2011, 51:944-954.
• [5]Piepho HP, Möhring J, Melchinger AE, Büchse A: Blup for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 2008, 161:209-228.
• [6]Smith A, Cullis B, Gilmour A: The analysis of crop variety evaluation data in Australia. Aust NZ J Stat 2001, 43:129-145.
• [7]Crossa J, Burgueño J, Cornelius PL, McLaren G, Trethowan R, Krishnamachari A: Modelling genotype x environment interaction using additive genetic covariances of relatives for predicting breeding values of wheat genotypes. Crop Sci 2006, 46:1722-1733.
• [8]Besag J, Kempton R: Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics 1986, 42:231-251.
• [9]Möhring J, Piepho HP: Comparison of weighting in two-stage analysis of plant breeding trials. Crop Sci 2009, 49:1977-1988.
• [10]Cullis B, Gogel B, Verbyla A, Thompson R: Spatial analysis of multi-environment early generation variety trials. Biometrics 1998, 54:1-18.
• [11]Duarte JB, Vencovsky R: Spatial statistical analysis and selection of genotypes in plant breeding. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 2005, 40:107-114.
• [12]Zimmerman DL, Harville DA: A random field approach to the analysis of field-plot experiments and other spatial experiments. Biometrics 1991, 47:223-239.
• [13]Spilke J, Richter C, Piepho HP: Model selection and its consequences for different split-plot designs with spatial covariance and trend. Plant Breed 2010, 129:590-598.
• [14]Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE: Variance Components. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 1992.
• [15]Heslot N, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME: Using genomic prediction to characterize environments and optimize prediction accuracy in applied breeding data. Crop Sci 2013, 53:921-933.
• [16]Kang HM, Zaitlen NA, Wade CM, Kirby A, Heckerman D: Efficient control of population structure in model organism association mapping. Genetics 2008, 178:1709-1723.
• [17]Piepho HP, Buechse A, Emrich K: A hitchhiker’s guide to mixed models for randomized experiments. J Agron Crop Sci 2003, 189:310-322.
• [18]Williams ER: A neighbour model for field experiments. Biometrika 1986, 73:279-287.
• [19]Piepho HP, Richter C, Williams E: Nearest neighbour adjustment and linear variance models in plant breeding trials. Biom J 2008, 50:164-189.
• [20]Gilmour A, Cullis B, Verbyla AP: Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 1997, 2:269-293.
• [21]Piepho HP, Williams ER: Linear variance models for plant breeding trials. Plant Breed 2010, 129:1-8.
• [22]Piepho HP, Möhring J: Computing heritability and selection response from unbalanced plant breeding trials. Genetics 2007, 177:1881-1888.
• [23]Ould Estaghvirou SB, Ogutu JO, Schulz-Streeck T, Knaak C, Ouzunova M, Gordillo A, Piepho HP: Evaluation of approaches for estimating the accuracy of genomic prediction in plant breeding. BMC Genomics 2013, 14:860.
• [24]Piepho HP: Ridge regression and extensions for genomewide selection in maize. Crop Sci 2009, 49:1165-1176.
• [25]Piepho HP, Ogutu JO, Schulz-Streeck T, Estaghvirou B, Gordillo A, Technow F: Efficient computation of ridge-regression best linear unbiased prediction in genomic selection in plant breeding. Crop Sci 2012, 52:1093-1104.
• [26]VanRaden PM: Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 2008, 91:4414-4423.
• [27]Albrecht T, Wimmer V, Auinger HJ, Erbe M, Knaak C, Ouzunova M, Simianer H, Schön CC: Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize. Theor Appl Genet 2011, 123:339-350.
• [28]Dekkers JCM: Prediction of response to marker-assisted and genomic selection using selection index theory. J Anim Breed Genet 2007, 124:331-341.
• [29]Wimmer V, Albrecht T, Auinger HJ, Schön CC: synbreed: a framework for the analysis of genomic prediction data using R. Bioinformatics 2012, 28:1-29.
• [30]Falconer DS, Mackay TFC: Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th edn.. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall; 1996.
• [31]Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H: Repeatability for gaussian and non-gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 2010, 85:935-956.
• [32]Le Roy P, Filangi O, Demeure O, Elsen J-M: Comparison of analyses of the XVth QTLMAS common dataset III: genomic estimations of breeding values. BMC Proc 2012, 6(Suppl 2):3.
• [33]Wang C-L, Ma P-P, Zhang Z, Ding X-D, Liu J-F, Fu W-X, Weng Z-Q, Zhang Q: Comparison of five methods for genomic breeding value estimation for the common dataset of the 15th QTL-MAS Workshop. BMC Proc 2012, 6(Suppl 2):13.
• [34]Lado B, Matus I, Rodríguez A, Inostroza L, Poland J, Belzile F, Del Pozo A, Quincke M, Castro M, von Zitzewitz J: Increased genomic prediction accuracy in wheat breeding through spatial adjustment of field trial data. G3 2013, 3:2105-2114.
• [35]Wilkinson GN, Eckert SR, Hancock TW, Mayo O: Nearest neighbour (nn) analysis of field experiments. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 1983, 45:151-211.
• [36]Williams ER, John JA, Whitaker D: Construction of resolvable spatial row-column designs. Biometrics 2006, 62:103-108.
• [37]Williams ER, Luckett DJ: The use of uniformity data in the design and analysis of cotton and barley variety trials. Aust J Agric Res 1988, 39:339-350.
• [38]Möhring J, Williams ER, Piepho HP: Efficiency of augmented p-rep designs in multi-environmental trials. Theor Appl Genet 2014, 127:1049-1060.
• [39]Patterson HD, Hunter EA: The efficiency of incomplete block designs in national list and recommended list cereal variety trials. J Agric Sci 1983, 101:427-433.
• [40]Lee H, Ghosh SK: Performance of information criteria for spatial models. JSCS 2009, 79:93-106.
• [41]Riedelsheimer C, Endelman JB, Stange M, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL, Melchinger AE: Genomic predictability of interconnected biparental maize populations. Genetics 2013, 194:493-503.
• [42]Schulz-Streeck T, Ogutu JO, Gordillo A, Karaman Z, Knaak C, Piepho HP: Genomic selection allowing for marker-by-environment interaction. Plant Breed 2013, 132:532-538.
• [43]Windhausen VS, Atlin GN, Hickey JM, Crossa J, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME, Raman B, Cairns JE, Tarekegne A, Semagn K, Beyene Y, Grudloyma P, Technow F, Riedelsheimer C, Melchinger AE: Effectiveness of genomic prediction of maize hybrid performance in different breeding populations and environments. G3 2012, 2:1427-1436.
• [44]Burgueño J, de los Campos G, Weigel K, Crossa J: Genomic prediction of breeding values when modeling genotype x environment interaction using pedigree and dense molecular markers. Crop Sci 2012, 52:707-719.