» Articles » PMID: 29619038

Optimized Use of Low-Depth Genotyping-by-Sequencing for Genomic Prediction Among Multi-Parental Family Pools and Single Plants in Perennial Ryegrass ( L.)

Overview
Journal Front Plant Sci
Date 2018 Apr 6
PMID 29619038
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Ryegrass single plants, bi-parental family pools, and multi-parental family pools are often genotyped, based on allele-frequencies using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) assays. GBS assays can be performed at low-coverage depth to reduce costs. However, reducing the coverage depth leads to a higher proportion of missing data, and leads to a reduction in accuracy when identifying the allele-frequency at each locus. As a consequence of the latter, genomic relationship matrices (GRMs) will be biased. This bias in GRMs affects variance estimates and the accuracy of GBLUP for genomic prediction (GBLUP-GP). We derived equations that describe the bias from low-coverage sequencing as an effect of binomial sampling of sequence reads, and allowed for any ploidy level of the sample considered. This allowed us to combine individual and pool genotypes in one GRM, treating pool-genotypes as a polyploid genotype, equal to the total ploidy-level of the parents of the pool. Using simulated data, we verified the magnitude of the GRM bias at different coverage depths for three different kinds of ryegrass breeding material: individual genotypes from single plants, pool-genotypes from F families, and pool-genotypes from synthetic varieties. To better handle missing data, we also tested imputation procedures, which are suited for analyzing allele-frequency genomic data. The relative advantages of the bias-correction and the imputation of missing data were evaluated using real data. We examined a large dataset, including single plants, F families, and synthetic varieties genotyped in three GBS assays, each with a different coverage depth, and evaluated them for heading date, crown rust resistance, and seed yield. Cross validations were used to test the accuracy using GBLUP approaches, demonstrating the feasibility of predicting among different breeding material. Bias-corrected GRMs proved to increase predictive accuracies when compared with standard approaches to construct GRMs. Among the imputation methods we tested, the random forest method yielded the highest predictive accuracy. The combinations of these two methods resulted in a meaningful increase of predictive ability (up to 0.09). The possibility of predicting across individuals and pools provides new opportunities for improving ryegrass breeding schemes.

Citing Articles

Using genotype imputation to integrate Canola populations for genome-wide association and genomic prediction of blackleg resistance.

Zhao H, MacLeod I, Keeble-Gagnere G, Barbulescu D, Tibbits J, Kaur S BMC Genomics. 2025; 26(1):215.

PMID: 40038585 PMC: 11877698. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-025-11250-4.


The value of early root development traits in breeding programs for biomass yield in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.).

Malinowska M, Kristensen P, Nielsen B, Fe D, Ruud A, Lenk I Theor Appl Genet. 2025; 138(1):31.

PMID: 39836302 PMC: 11750904. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-024-04797-5.


Performance of phenomic selection in rice: Effects of population size and genotype-environment interactions on predictive ability.

de Verdal H, Segura V, Pot D, Salas N, Garin V, Rakotoson T PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0309502.

PMID: 39715250 PMC: 11666020. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309502.


Optimization of high-throughput marker systems for genomic prediction in alfalfa family bulks.

Sipowicz P, Leite Andrade M, Fernandes Filho C, Benevenuto J, Munoz P, Ferrao L Plant Genome. 2024; 18(1):e20526.

PMID: 39635923 PMC: 11726437. DOI: 10.1002/tpg2.20526.


Including marker x environment interactions improves genomic prediction in red clover ( L.).

Skot L, Nay M, Grieder C, Frey L, Pegard M, Ohlund L Front Plant Sci. 2024; 15:1407609.

PMID: 38916032 PMC: 11194335. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1407609.


References
1.
VanRaden P . Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci. 2008; 91(11):4414-23. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2007-0980. View

2.
Fe D, Ashraf B, Pedersen M, Janss L, Byrne S, Roulund N . Accuracy of Genomic Prediction in a Commercial Perennial Ryegrass Breeding Program. Plant Genome. 2016; 9(3). DOI: 10.3835/plantgenome2015.11.0110. View

3.
Bassi F, Bentley A, Charmet G, Ortiz R, Crossa J . Breeding schemes for the implementation of genomic selection in wheat (Triticum spp.). Plant Sci. 2015; 242:23-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2015.08.021. View

4.
Rutkoski J, Poland J, Jannink J, Sorrells M . Imputation of unordered markers and the impact on genomic selection accuracy. G3 (Bethesda). 2013; 3(3):427-39. PMC: 3583451. DOI: 10.1534/g3.112.005363. View

5.
Money D, Gardner K, Migicovsky Z, Schwaninger H, Zhong G, Myles S . LinkImpute: Fast and Accurate Genotype Imputation for Nonmodel Organisms. G3 (Bethesda). 2015; 5(11):2383-90. PMC: 4632058. DOI: 10.1534/g3.115.021667. View