2019
DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12620
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genome‐wide association and genomic prediction for biomass yield in a genetically diverse Miscanthus sinensis germplasm panel phenotyped at five locations in Asia and North America

Abstract: To improve the efficiency of breeding of Miscanthus for biomass yield, there is a need to develop genomics‐assisted selection for this long‐lived perennial crop by relating genotype to phenotype and breeding value across a broad range of environments. We present the first genome‐wide association (GWA) and genomic prediction study of Miscanthus that utilizes multilocation phenotypic data. A panel of 568 Miscanthus sinensis accessions was genotyped with 46,177 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and evaluated… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

6
27
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

5
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
6
27
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our analysis of the observed traits suggests that subpopulation structure contributed substantially to the prediction accuracies within each panel (Figure 2), and this finding is consistent with previous studies conducted by ourselves and others (Clark et al 2019b;Crossa et al 2016;Wientjes et al 2015). When we previously performed genomic selection on the Msi panel using a larger set of 46,177 genome-wide SNPs, we observed decreases in prediction accuracy after accounting for subpopulation structure (Clark et al 2019b). Outside of Msi, Crossa et al (2016) reported a decrease of 15-20% when using PCs of markers in the GS model to account for population structure present in two collections of wheat landrace accessions, while Wientjes et al (2015) observed that using population information among three cattle breeds for prediction gave prediction accuracies up to 30% higher than those from a GS model including breed as a fixed effect.…”
Section: Impact Of Subpopulation Structure On Prediction Accuracies Wsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Our analysis of the observed traits suggests that subpopulation structure contributed substantially to the prediction accuracies within each panel (Figure 2), and this finding is consistent with previous studies conducted by ourselves and others (Clark et al 2019b;Crossa et al 2016;Wientjes et al 2015). When we previously performed genomic selection on the Msi panel using a larger set of 46,177 genome-wide SNPs, we observed decreases in prediction accuracy after accounting for subpopulation structure (Clark et al 2019b). Outside of Msi, Crossa et al (2016) reported a decrease of 15-20% when using PCs of markers in the GS model to account for population structure present in two collections of wheat landrace accessions, while Wientjes et al (2015) observed that using population information among three cattle breeds for prediction gave prediction accuracies up to 30% higher than those from a GS model including breed as a fixed effect.…”
Section: Impact Of Subpopulation Structure On Prediction Accuracies Wsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Our analysis of the observed traits suggests that subpopulation structure contributed substantially to the prediction accuracies within each panel (Figure 2), and this finding is consistent with previous studies conducted by ourselves and others (Clark et al 2019b;Crossa et al 2016;Wientjes et al 2015). When we previously performed genomic selection on the Msi panel using a larger set of 46,177 genome-wide SNPs, we observed decreases in prediction accuracy after accounting for subpopulation structure (Clark et al 2019b).…”
Section: Impact Of Subpopulation Structure On Prediction Accuracies Wsupporting
confidence: 90%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…10c, e), which indicates that the most productive miscanthus genotype currently grown is the product of more than one cycle of introgression from M. sinensis into M. sacchariflorus. Hybrids between M. sacchariflorus and M. sinensis are frequently highly vigorous and high-yielding, regardless of whether they are diploid, triploid, or tetraploid 46,47 . Thus, understanding how prior introgression of M. sinensis alleles into a primarily M. sacchariflorus genetic background affects the yield potential of subsequent interspecific hybrids will be important for optimizing breeding strategies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%