Optimal Cross Selection for Long-term Genetic Gain in Two-part Programs with Rapid Recurrent Genomic Selection

Overview

Journal Theor Appl Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialty Genetics

Date 2018 Jun 8

PMID 29876589

Citations 59

Authors

Gregor Gorjanc

R Chris Gaynor

John M Hickey

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Key message Optimal cross selection increases long-term genetic gain of two-part programs with rapid recurrent genomic selection. It achieves this by optimising efficiency of converting genetic diversity into genetic gain through reducing the loss of genetic diversity and reducing the drop of genomic prediction accuracy with rapid cycling. This study evaluates optimal cross selection to balance selection and maintenance of genetic diversity in two-part plant breeding programs with rapid recurrent genomic selection. The two-part program reorganises a conventional breeding program into a population improvement component with recurrent genomic selection to increase the mean value of germplasm and a product development component with standard methods to develop new lines. Rapid recurrent genomic selection has a large potential, but is challenging due to genotyping costs or genetic drift. Here we simulate a wheat breeding program for 20 years and compare optimal cross selection against truncation selection in the population improvement component with one to six cycles per year. With truncation selection we crossed a small or a large number of parents. With optimal cross selection we jointly optimised selection, maintenance of genetic diversity, and cross allocation with AlphaMate program. The results show that the two-part program with optimal cross selection delivered the largest genetic gain that increased with the increasing number of cycles. With four cycles per year optimal cross selection had 78% (15%) higher long-term genetic gain than truncation selection with a small (large) number of parents. Higher genetic gain was achieved through higher efficiency of converting genetic diversity into genetic gain; optimal cross selection quadrupled (doubled) efficiency of truncation selection with a small (large) number of parents. Optimal cross selection also reduced the drop of genomic selection accuracy due to the drift between training and prediction populations. In conclusion optimal cross selection enables optimal management and exploitation of population improvement germplasm in two-part programs.

Citing Articles

Micronutrient Biofortification in Wheat: QTLs, Candidate Genes and Molecular Mechanism.

Nasim A, Hao J, Tawab F, Jin C, Zhu J, Luo S Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 26(5).

PMID: 40076800 PMC: 11900071. DOI: 10.3390/ijms26052178.

Optimizing the selection of quantitative traits in plant breeding using simulation.

Vieira R, Nogueira A, Fritsche-Neto R Front Plant Sci. 2025; 16:1495662.

PMID: 39996117 PMC: 11847808. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1495662.

Optimal implementation of genomic selection in clone breeding programs exemplified in potato: II. Effect of selection strategy and cross-selection method on long-term genetic gain.

Wu P, Stich B, Hartje S, Muders K, Prigge V, Van Inghelandt D Plant Genome. 2025; 18(1):e70000.

PMID: 39965909 PMC: 11835509. DOI: 10.1002/tpg2.70000.

Is there an advantage of using genomic information to estimate gametic variances and improve recurrent selection in animal populations?.

Elsen J, Raoul J, Gilbert H Genet Sel Evol. 2025; 57(1):5.

PMID: 39962367 PMC: 11831845. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-025-00953-7.

Tester selection for combining ability estimation of storage root yield and sweetpotato virus disease in sweetpotato breeding.

Swanckaert J, Dos Santos I, Chaves S, Ssali R, Mwanga R, Azevedo C Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):4951.

PMID: 39929967 PMC: 11811066. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88609-w.

References

Meuwissen T . Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding. J Anim Sci. 1997; 75(4):934-40. DOI: 10.2527/1997.754934x. View

Scutari M, Mackay I, Balding D . Using Genetic Distance to Infer the Accuracy of Genomic Prediction. PLoS Genet. 2016; 12(9):e1006288. PMC: 5010218. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006288. View

Gaynor R, Gorjanc G, Hickey J . AlphaSimR: an R package for breeding program simulations. G3 (Bethesda). 2021; 11(2). PMC: 8022926. DOI: 10.1093/g3journal/jkaa017. View

Hickey J, Chiurugwi T, Mackay I, Powell W . Genomic prediction unifies animal and plant breeding programs to form platforms for biological discovery. Nat Genet. 2017; 49(9):1297-1303. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3920. View

Eynard S, Croiseau P, Laloe D, Fritz S, Calus M, Restoux G . Which Individuals To Choose To Update the Reference Population? Minimizing the Loss of Genetic Diversity in Animal Genomic Selection Programs. G3 (Bethesda). 2017; 8(1):113-121. PMC: 5765340. DOI: 10.1534/g3.117.1117. View

Pszczola M, Strabel T, Mulder H, Calus M . Reliability of direct genomic values for animals with different relationships within and to the reference population. J Dairy Sci. 2011; 95(1):389-400. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2011-4338. View

Habier D, Fernando R, Dekkers J . The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics. 2007; 177(4):2389-97. PMC: 2219482. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.107.081190. View

Cowling W, Li L, Siddique K, Henryon M, Berg P, Banks R . Evolving gene banks: improving diverse populations of crop and exotic germplasm with optimal contribution selection. J Exp Bot. 2017; 68(8):1927-1939. PMC: 5853616. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erw406. View

Paixao T, Barton N . The effect of gene interactions on the long-term response to selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113(16):4422-7. PMC: 4843425. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1518830113. View

10.

Watson A, Ghosh S, Williams M, Cuddy W, Simmonds J, Rey M . Speed breeding is a powerful tool to accelerate crop research and breeding. Nat Plants. 2018; 4(1):23-29. DOI: 10.1038/s41477-017-0083-8. View

11.

Lin Z, Shi F, Hayes B, Daetwyler H . Mitigation of inbreeding while preserving genetic gain in genomic breeding programs for outbred plants. Theor Appl Genet. 2017; 130(5):969-980. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-017-2863-y. View

12.

Wright S . The genetical structure of populations. Ann Eugen. 2014; 15(4):323-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.1949.tb02451.x. View

13.

De Beukelaer H, Badke Y, Fack V, De Meyer G . Moving Beyond Managing Realized Genomic Relationship in Long-Term Genomic Selection. Genetics. 2017; 206(2):1127-1138. PMC: 5499167. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.116.194449. View

14.

Hill W . Is Continued Genetic Improvement of Livestock Sustainable?. Genetics. 2016; 202(3):877-81. PMC: 4788124. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.115.186650. View

15.

Jacobson A, Lian L, Zhong S, Bernardo R . Marker Imputation Before Genomewide Selection in Biparental Maize Populations. Plant Genome. 2020; 8(2):eplantgenome2014.10.0078. DOI: 10.3835/plantgenome2014.10.0078. View

16.

Kinghorn B . An algorithm for efficient constrained mate selection. Genet Sel Evol. 2011; 43(1):4. PMC: 3037843. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-43-4. View

17.

Michel S, Ametz C, Gungor H, Epure D, Grausgruber H, Loschenberger F . Genomic selection across multiple breeding cycles in applied bread wheat breeding. Theor Appl Genet. 2016; 129(6):1179-89. PMC: 4869760. DOI: 10.1007/s00122-016-2694-2. View

18.

Woolliams J, Berg P, Dagnachew B, Meuwissen T . Genetic contributions and their optimization. J Anim Breed Genet. 2015; 132(2):89-99. DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12148. View

19.

Jannink J, Lorenz A, Iwata H . Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Brief Funct Genomics. 2010; 9(2):166-77. DOI: 10.1093/bfgp/elq001. View

20.

Gorjanc G, Hickey J . AlphaMate: a program for optimizing selection, maintenance of diversity and mate allocation in breeding programs. Bioinformatics. 2018; 34(19):3408-3411. PMC: 6157072. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty375. View