2021
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.648192
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genome-Wide Association Studies Identifying Multiple Loci Associated With Alfalfa Forage Quality

Abstract: Autotetraploid alfalfa is a major hay crop planted all over the world due to its adaptation in different environments and high quality for animal feed. However, the genetic basis of alfalfa quality is not fully understood. In this study, a diverse panel of 200 alfalfa accessions were planted in field trials using augmented experimental design at three locations in 2018 and 2019. Thirty-four quality traits were evaluated by Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS). The plants were genotyped using a genotyp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This difference may be caused by variations in the assumptions of SNP effects and variance of Bayesian methods (de los Campos et al., 2009; Erbe et al., 2012; Habier et al., 2011; Meuwissen et al., 2001) and renders them less suitable for complex quantitative traits when compared to rrBLUP (Beaulieu et al., 2014; Meuwissen et al., 2001). All the agronomic traits examined in our research are quantitative traits and are governed by a combination of multiple large‐effect and numerous small‐effect genes (Adhikari et al., 2019; He et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2022; Li, Alarcón‐Zúñiga, et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2021; Mackay, 2001; McCord et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022), and the rrBLUP method may offer better predictions for these traits compared to the Bayesian methods. Although rrBLUP method may seem superior, its prediction accuracy is not consistently better than that of Bayesian methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This difference may be caused by variations in the assumptions of SNP effects and variance of Bayesian methods (de los Campos et al., 2009; Erbe et al., 2012; Habier et al., 2011; Meuwissen et al., 2001) and renders them less suitable for complex quantitative traits when compared to rrBLUP (Beaulieu et al., 2014; Meuwissen et al., 2001). All the agronomic traits examined in our research are quantitative traits and are governed by a combination of multiple large‐effect and numerous small‐effect genes (Adhikari et al., 2019; He et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2022; Li, Alarcón‐Zúñiga, et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2021; Mackay, 2001; McCord et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022), and the rrBLUP method may offer better predictions for these traits compared to the Bayesian methods. Although rrBLUP method may seem superior, its prediction accuracy is not consistently better than that of Bayesian methods.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Plant materials were described previously (Lin et al 2021). In brief, a diverse panel of 200 genotypes consisted of 148 accessions from USDA-ARS National Plant Germplasm System, and 52 cultivars from S&W Seed Co., Alforex Seeds™, Legacy Seeds, and Blue River Hybrids.…”
Section: Plant Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DNA isolation and library construction were completed as previously described (Lin et al 2021). In brief, DNA was extracted from young leaves using Qiagen DNeasy 96 Plant Kit (Qiagen, CA) according to the manufacturer's protocol.…”
Section: Dna Isolation and Gbs Library Constructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Owing to the distal regulation of the SNPs and referring to other related studies (Lin et al, 2021), we considered that significant SNPs may affect the genes in the nearby 50 kb range, and defined the genes in the 50 kb extended region surrounding significant SNPs as candidate genes, including 17 annotated protein coding genes and four anonymous genes, namely uncharacterized LOC106017654 , SOX17 , OPCML , ENSAPLG00020016661 , MLN , ENSAPLG00020016665 , LEMD2 , IP6K3 , UQCC2 , ENSAPLG00020016921 , LZTS1 , ATP6V1B2 , SLC18A1 , MAK16 , TTI2 , RNF122 , DUSP26 , UHRF1 , ENSAPLG00020008207 , FEM1A and DPP9 .…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%