Factors Affecting Accuracy From Genomic Selection in Populations Derived From Multiple Inbred Lines: A Barley Case Study

Abstract

We compared the accuracies of four genomic-selection prediction methods as affected by marker density, level of linkage disequilibrium (LD), quantitative trait locus (QTL) number, sample size, and level of replication in populations generated from multiple inbred lines. Marker data on 42 two-row spring barley inbred lines were used to simulate high and low LD populations from multiple inbred line crosses: the first included many small full-sib families and the second was derived from five generations of random mating. True breeding values (TBV) were simulated on the basis of 20 or 80 additive QTL. Methods used to derive genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were random regression best linear unbiased prediction (RR-BLUP), Bayes-B, a Bayesian shrinkage regression method, and BLUP from a mixed model analysis using a relationship matrix calculated from marker data. Using the best methods, accuracies of GEBV were comparable to accuracies from phenotype for predicting TBV without requiring the time and expense of field evaluation. We identified a trade-off between a method's ability to capture marker-QTL LD vs. marker-based relatedness of individuals. The Bayesian shrinkage regression method primarily captured LD, the BLUP methods captured relationships, while Bayes-B captured both. Under most of the study scenarios, mixed-model analysis using a marker-derived relationship matrix (BLUP) was more accurate than methods that directly estimated marker effects, suggesting that relationship information was more valuable than LD information. When markers were in strong LD with large-effect QTL, or when predictions were made on individuals several generations removed from the training data set, however, the ranking of method performance was reversed and BLUP had the lowest accuracy. proper posterior distributions-of-effect estimates and to better estimate QTL locations. We can regard these Bayesian shrinkage regression methods as another form of genomic selection when using them to predict breeding values. In previous work, these genomic-selection prediction methods have predominantly been compared under a specific simulation scenario such that their relative strengths under different conditions of linkage disequilibrium (LD), marker density, training data set size, and distribution of QTL effects are not Supporting information is available online at

Prediction of Genetic Values of Quantitative Traits in Plant Breeding Using Pedigree and Molecular Markers

“…The comparison between BL and RKHS yielded mixed results; this finding is in agreement with those of Zhong et al (2009), who evaluated different models in different scenarios (mating systems) and did not find one method that performed best across scenarios. For grain yield and anthesis-silking interval, RKHS methods performed either similarly or better than the BL; however, for female and male flowering traits in maize, BL outperformed RKHS markedly.…”

“…Several simulation studies (Bernardo and Yu 2007;Wong and Bernardo 2008;Mayor and Bernardo 2009;Zhong et al 2009) have reported important gains in genetic progress associated with the use of GS in plant breeding. Recently, Heffner et al (2009) concluded that the high correlation between true breeding values and the genomic estimated breeding values found in several simulation studies is sufficient for considering selection based on molecular markers alone; however, evaluation of these methods with real plant data is still very limited.…”

Genomic breeding value prediction: methods and procedures

“…Some studies showed that depending on the frequency of re-estimating the effects, different methods may be more suitable to obtain SNP effects whose accuracies are more persistent across generations. For instance, methods that are better able to disentangle between LD and linkage information show better persistency of GEBV accuracy across generations (Habier et al, 2007;Zhong et al, 2009). Despite the finding that approximately 50 000 SNPs are sufficient for within-breed genomic breeding value prediction in cattle, larger SNP arrays that undoubtedly will become available in the future will increase the LD between SNPs and QTL, leading to slower reduction of the accuracy of GEBVs across generations.…”

The Accuracy of Genomic Selection in Norwegian Red Cattle Assessed by Cross-Validation

“…The recent availability of genomewide dense SNP marker maps has made GS with real data feasible. Studies of the accuracy of genomic predictions have emerged in some animal species, including mice (Lee et al 2008;Legarra et al 2008), chickens (GonzalezRecio et al 2009), and cattle , and in plant species [for example, barley (Zhong et al 2009)]. For GS applied to dairy cattle, accuracies for the GW-EBV have been reported in North American Holstein (VanRaden et al 2009), Australian Holstein-Friesian , and New Zealand Holstein-Friesian and Jersey dairy cattle (Harris et al 2008).…”