Prediction Strategies for Leveraging Information of Associated Traits under Single- and Multi-Trait Approaches in Soybeans

Abstract

The availability of molecular markers has revolutionized conventional ways to improve genotypes in plant and animal breeding through genome-based predictions. Several models and methods have been developed to leverage the genomic information in the prediction context to allow more efficient ways to screen and select superior genotypes. In plant breeding, usually, grain yield (yield) is the main trait to drive the selection of superior genotypes; however, in many cases, the information of associated traits is also routinely collected and it can potentially be used to enhance the selection. In this research, we considered different prediction strategies to leverage the information of the associated traits ([AT]; full: all traits observed for the same genotype; and partial: some traits observed for the same genotype) under an alternative single-trait model and the multi-trait approach. The alternative single-trait model included the information of the AT for yield prediction via the phenotypic covariances while the multi-trait model jointly analyzed all the traits. The performance of these strategies was assessed using the marker and phenotypic information from the Soybean Nested Association Mapping (SoyNAM) project observed in Nebraska in 2012. The results showed that the alternative single-trait strategy, which combines the marker and the information of the AT, outperforms the multi-trait model by around 12% and the conventional single-trait strategy (baseline) by 25%. When no information on the AT was available for those genotypes in the testing sets, the multi-trait model reduced the baseline results by around 6%. For the cases where genotypes were partially observed (i.e., some traits observed but not others for the same genotype), the multi-trait strategy showed improvements of around 6% for yield and between 2% to 9% for the other traits. Hence, when yield drives the selection of superior genotypes, the single-trait and multi-trait genomic prediction will achieve significant improvements when some genotypes have been fully or partially tested, with the alternative single-trait model delivering the best results. These results provide empirical evidence of the usefulness of the AT for improving the predictive ability of prediction models for breeding applications.

Multi‐trait genomic prediction improves selection accuracy for enhancing seed mineral concentrations in pea

“…To evaluate the performance of sparse‐testing‐strategy‐aided MT‐GS, different cross‐validations mimicking potential applications of MT‐GS in a breeding program were explored. Leveraging on the results from sparse testing in multi‐environment yield trials using GS (Jarquin et al., 2020; Persa et al., 2020; Atanda et al., 2021b, 2022), we varied the number of genotypes that serve as connectivity across traits to assess predictive ability in the different scenarios. Depending on the size of the data set and the number of phenotypes, different overlapping sizes were evaluated (Supplemental Table S1).…”

Mitigating tradeoffs in plant breeding

“…They also improved predicting the performance of hybrids not yet evaluated in any environment de Oliveira et al. (2020) Soybean If grain yield weighs the selection for superior genotypes, then both single-trait and multi-trait genomic predictions led to significant improvements when some genotypes were fully or partially tested, though single-trait model got the best results Persa et al. (2020) Facultative wheat Multi-trait model increased genetic gains vis-à-vis the single-trait model across environments, thus being the former an efficient strategy for selecting under variable water regimes Guo et al.…”

A matter of genetic divergence: sizing up the sample for soybean canonical variables

“…Importantly, methodologies that focus on biochemical and physiological aspects are also promising and accurate alternatives for genetic divergence studies (Dwivedi et al 2021;Zhuang et al 2022). However, the same authors report that this type of research often requires an infrastructure that is unavailable to most breeders, so biometric tools are normally preferred for studies in the field (Cruz et al 2012;Persa et al 2020;Dwivedi et al 2021).…”