Skip to main content
Download PDF

Genomic prediction models for traits differing in heritability for soybean, rice, and maize

BMC Plant Biology volume 22, Article number: 87 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Genomic selection is a powerful tool in plant breeding. By building a prediction model using a training set with markers and phenotypes, genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) can be used as predictions of breeding values in a target set with only genotype data. There is, however, limited information on how prediction accuracy of genomic prediction can be optimized. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of 11 genomic prediction models across species in terms of prediction accuracy for two traits with different heritabilities using several subsets of markers and training population proportions. Species studied were maize (Zea mays, L.), soybean (Glycine max, L.), and rice (Oryza sativa, L.), which vary in linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay rates and have contrasting genetic architectures.

Results

Correlations between observed and predicted GEBVs were determined via cross validation for three training-to-testing proportions (90:10, 70:30, and 50:50). Maize, which has the shortest extent of LD, showed the highest prediction accuracy. Amongst all the models tested, Bayes B performed better than or equal to all other models for each trait in all the three crops. Traits with higher broad-sense and narrow-sense heritabilities were associated with higher prediction accuracy. When subsets of markers were selected based on LD, the accuracy was similar to that observed from the complete set of markers. However, prediction accuracies were significantly improved when using a subset of total markers that were significant at P ≤ 0.05 or P ≤ 0.10. As expected, exclusion of QTL-associated markers in the model reduced prediction accuracy. Prediction accuracy varied among different training population proportions.

Conclusions

We conclude that prediction accuracy for genomic selection can be improved by using the Bayes B model with a subset of significant markers and by selecting the training population based on narrow sense heritability.

Peer Review reports

Background

Plant breeders observe the phenotypes of crops to choose desirable offspring in an aim to genetically improve target traits. Selection during the breeding process is a crucial step in crop breeding, with historical and current conventional plant breeding depending on phenotypic selection. The Selection-index (SI) method [1] selects multiple traits simultaneously based on a total score, is more efficient than selection for one trait at a time, and can improve aggregate genetic gain over time [2]. With advancements in computation, Henderson [3] proposed the best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP), which has become the most widely used method for genetic evaluation. High throughput genotyping methods have resulted in a large number of molecular markers that are available to assist in crop breeding. Although marker-assisted selection (MAS) is a popular method in molecular crop breeding [4], utilization of MAS has been limited in breeding programs because many of the important agronomic traits in crop breeding are complex and controlled by a large number of genes with small effects [5], making effective MAS difficult or impossible.

Genomic selection provides a potential advantage in crop breeding by accelerating the genetic improvement of crops per unit time through the reduction in cost per breeding cycle and shortening of the generation interval [6]. Additionally, genomic prediction can save labor costs compared to conventional breeding [7]. Meuwissen et al. [8] proposed a genomic selection method that uses genome-wide markers to estimate the effects of all loci and from which a genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) can be computed to make the prediction for progeny of the target set with only genotypic data. A basic requirement for genomic prediction is that markers are distributed throughout the genome so that at least one marker is in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with each QTL [9]. All markers are used simultaneously to estimate effects using a “training” population [10]. Based on the training population, genomic prediction can predict GEBVs of individuals for selection. The GEBV of each individual can be estimated using markers whose effects can be estimated using a linear mixed model of the form y = Xβ + Zα + e, where y is a vector of standardized phenotypes, β is a vector of fixed effects, α is a vector of random effects for each marker, e is the random error, and X and Z are incidence matrices. When the number of predictors (markers) is much higher than the number of genotypes, fixed regression methods using ordinary least squares cannot be used for developing prediction models because of overfitting among predictors [11].

Numerous genomic prediction models have been developed for predicting phenotypes using large sets of genetic markers (relevant examples are listed in Additional File 1, Table S1). Variation resulting from hundreds or thousands of markers can be controlled by various shrinkage and variable selection methods. Models differ in various assumptions including the distribution of marker effects and marker variances. Methods such as ridge regression assume that marker effects are homogeneously distributed across the genome [12], whereas Bayesian methods allow for heterogeneity among markers, with some markers having effects coming from a different underlying distribution than others [13]. In methods such as BayesB, a prior probability distribution is used to select a proportion of markers with non-zero effects; in least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) models, penalties are used to select markers with major effects [14]. BayesB and Bayesian LASSO methods can identify a subset of markers with large effects (variable selection) and use them for making predictions.

The utility of genomic prediction is expressed as the correlation between predicted and phenotypic values so that prediction of the individuals can be made accurately in earlier generations, with the aim to shorten selection cycles. Generally, it is assumed that the accuracy of prediction can be increased as more individuals are included in the training population and more markers are used in the prediction model. However, in practice this is not true in every case; increased size of the training population and increased number of markers in the prediction model may not lead to improved prediction accuracy (PA) [15] because of overfitting or due to the presence of non-informative individuals in a larger training population. Therefore, the first step in genomic prediction is to determine the size of the training population and the number of markers used in the appropriate prediction model to estimate the GEBVs with an aim to obtain high predictive ability. The second step is the validation and testing of the models to predict the phenotype of those lines that were not present in the training models [16]. The accuracy of a model for prediction is typically evaluated using cross-validation techniques under the assumption that random partitioning of the data results in independent training and testing sets [12, 17]. Both the manner in which training–testing partitions are constructed, as well as the level of relatedness among individuals, have effects on cross validation results [13].

Several factors affect the accuracy of genomic prediction including the size and genetic diversity of the training population, trait heritability, marker density, gene or marker effects, and the extent and distribution of LD between markers and QTL. Therefore, there is an ongoing need to understand how accuracy of different models reacts among crop species that vary in the LD decay as well as how prediction accuracy is affected by marker number, training population proportion, and trait heritability. The main objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of numerous genomic prediction models for several traits that differ in heritability for three crop species with different LD decays rates and contrasting genetic architecture, as well as testing the effect of several methods of sub-setting total marker number and the interaction with training population size.

Results

Descriptive statistics of phenotypes

Broad sense heritability and descriptive statistics of all traits for soybean [18, 19] maize [20], and rice [21] are presented in Table 1. There was a wide range of phenotypic variation for each trait. In soybean, CW ranged by 38.1% and δ13C ranged by 1.46%. In maize, the DT ranged by 30.5 days and the EH ranged by 128 cm. In rice, the PPP ranged by 1.89 panicles and the SPP ranged by 2.19 seeds (Table 1).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and broad sense heritability of canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C) in soybean, panicles per plant (PPP) and seeds per plant (SPP) in rice, and days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH) in maize
Full size table

Markers distribution in subsets and narrow sense heritability

Tables S2, S3, and S4 (Additional File 1) show the distribution of markers across all chromosomes in different subsets of markers for all traits for all three crops. The number of markers was highest in maize compared to soybean and rice. To map a given trait with similar accuracy, maize requires a larger number of markers than soybean or rice because of faster LD decay. Both methods that were used to select subsets of markers reduced the marker number. Using subsets of markers based upon haplotype blocks decreased the number of markers by up to 58% (soybean), 26% (maize), and 37% (rice) (Table 2). Using subsets of markers based upon the probability (P = 0.05) of the association between a marker and given trait by FarmCPU [22] decreased the number of markers up to 97% (soybean), 96% (maize), and 98% (rice) (Table 2).

Table 2 Marker distribution in the different subsets of markers were selected based on the two methods: (1) when linkage disequilibrium between markers was correlated at r ≥ 0.90 (LD_90), r = 0.80 (LD_80), r = 0.70 (LD_70), r = 0.60 (LD_50) and (2) when SNP markers were significant with the respective traits at P-values of 50% (SNP_5), 10% (SNP_1), 5% (SNP_05), or non-significant (SNP_NS). The traits evaluated included canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C) for soybean, panicles per plant (PPP) and seeds per plant (SPP) for rice, and days to tasseling ((DT) and ear height (EH) for maize
Full size table

Marker based narrow sense heritability was estimated using marker information for all traits in the three crops for all different sets of markers and training population proportions. There was variation in h2 for all traits when using different subsets of markers for different training population proportions (Table 3). In general, for soybean and rice, h2 tended to increase as the subsets of markers based on P-values decreased from P = 0.50 to 0.05 (Table 3). This response was less evident in maize as h2 was largely unaffected by P-value, trait, or training population proportion. There was no discernable impact on h2 of limiting the subset of markers based on LD for any crop at any training population proportion.

Table 3 Marker based narrow sense heritability (h2) for canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C) in soybean, and seeds per plant (SPP) and panicles per plant (PPP) in rice, and days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH) in maize using 10 sets of markers in different training-to-testing proportions (TPS)
Full size table

Genomic prediction accuracy in soybean, rice, and maize

Prediction accuracy of different genomic prediction models was compared for several traits differing in heritability in soybean, rice, and maize varying in LD decays rates using all markers, as well as several subsets of markers delimited by LD (five threshold subsets) or by marker significance (four threshold subsets) and training-to-testing population proportions. We found a difference in prediction accuracy for all traits in soybean, rice, and maize using different subsets of markers at three training-to-testing proportions (Fig. 1). Comparing different sets of markers, the subset SNP_05 yielded higher accuracy than the complete marker set, subsets selected based on the LD, and non-significant subset for all traits in soybean, rice, and maize.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Prediction accuracies of 11 genomic prediction models in panicles per plant (PPP) and seeds per plant (SPP) in rice, days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH) in maize and canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C) in soybean, using different subsets of markers, which were selected based on the two methods, linkage disequilibrium between markers and significant markers at different P-values using cross validation for three training-to-testing proportions (90:10%, 70:30%, and 50:50%)

Full size image

Because the highest prediction accuracy was when using the SNP_05 subset, this subset was used to compare the different genomic prediction models (Fig. 2). For soybean, BayesB had the highest prediction accuracy for CW and δ 13C at all cross-validation levels. For SPP in rice, BayesB yielded the highest accuracy for all cross-validation levels. For PPP in rice, the accuracies of all models were similar for all of proportions between training and testing. For DT in maize, the highest prediction accuracy models were BayesB and RKHS at the 90:10 proportion. At the 70:30 and 50:50 proportions, the accuracies of all these models were mostly similar. For EH in maize, BayesB had the highest prediction accuracy at all training-to-testing proportions.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Prediction accuracies of 11 genomic prediction models in canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C) in soybean, and panicles per plant (PPP) and seeds per plant (SPP) in rice, and days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH) in maize using a subset of significant markers at P < 0.05, using cross validation for three training-to-testing proportions (90:10%, 70:30%, and 50:50%)

Full size image

Effect of the different training population proportions

Because a subset of significant markers selected at the significance level of P < 0.05 increased prediction accuracy in all selected traits of all crops, this subset was used to report the effect of the different training-to-testing population proportions (Fig. 2). Individuals were randomly assigned to training or testing sets, and this process was repeated 10 times. The effect of different testing population proportions on the prediction accuracy varied for different traits of these crops. For example, prediction accuracy of δ 13C and PPP was highest when the testing population proportion was 10% followed by 50 and 30% of the population. For CW, prediction accuracy was highest when the testing population proportion was 30% followed by 10 and 50% of the population. For SPP and EH, prediction accuracy was highest when the testing population proportion was 10% of the population followed by 30 and 50% of the population. For DT, prediction accuracy was highest when the testing population proportion was 30% followed by 50 and 10% of the population). These trends were similar for all the different sets of marker subsets (based upon significance threshold levels or LD decay rate; Additional File 1, Tables S6, S7, S8).

Effect of marker density among species and traits on prediction accuracy

The effect of marker density is reported using BayesB model for each trait from each crop species including wilting (CW) in soybean, seeds per plant (SPP) in rice, and ear height (EH) in maize at the 90:10 training-to-testing proportion (Fig. 3). We used Bayes B model because it had a higher prediction accuracy than other models and had a lower computational requirement. There was no increase in accuracy among the non-significant subset of markers and marker subsets delimited by LD (five threshold subsets) among crop species compared with the full set of markers. When subsets of markers were selected based on significance, prediction accuracy was increased for all traits among species. Significant markers selected at the significance level of P < 0.1 and P < 0.05 had the highest prediction accuracy for all selected traits for all crops. Significant markers at P < 0.05 had the highest prediction accuracy for all traits except for DT at 50:50 proportion, where significant markers at P < 0.1 had the highest prediction accuracy.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Effect of marker density of different subsets of markers, which were selected based on the two methods, linkage disequilibrium between markers and significant markers at different P-values, on the prediction accuracy of BayesB model for three traits including canopy wilting (CW) in soybean, seeds per plant (SPP) in rice, and ear height (EH) in maize using cross validation with a training-to-testing proportion of 90:10%

Full size image

Effect of narrow sense heritability on prediction accuracy

We estimated h2 for all traits using all the different combinations of markers sets and three training-to-testing proportions (90:10, 70:30, and 50:50). (Table 3). We observed strong to moderate positive correlations between h2 and prediction accuracy of models under different sets of markers for all traits for all training population proportions (Additional File 1, Table S5). The effect of subsets of markers on h2 followed the same trend as the effect on the prediction accuracies.

Discussion

This study evaluated the prediction accuracy of different genomic prediction models for crop species differing in LD and marker density, for traits differing in heritability, differences in marker density, and how proportions in the training-to-testing population affected prediction accuracy. To build a genomic prediction model, there is a need for a wide phenotypic variation [10], which was observed in this study. A basic assumption in genomic selection is that markers are distributed throughout the genome to provide sufficient coverage such that at least one marker is in LD with QTL that control the phenotypic variation. Genomic prediction models use all those effects to estimate GEBVs for progeny of the same or future generations [23].

We found that maize and rice had higher prediction accuracies than soybean. These crop species had different levels of LD/LD decay, which plays an important role in identifying marker-QTL associations [24]. Maize has a faster LD decay over physical distance compared to rice and soybean [18, 19, 25, 26]. Both maize and rice had more markers scattered over the genome than soybean, which increases the probability of having at least one marker in LD with a QTL [27]. The smaller number of markers with large effects in soybean may not explain all the genetic variance or may fail to capture small effect QTLs [28, 29]. Thavamanikumar et al. [30] reported similar results of difference in prediction accuracy among wheat populations varying in LD decay, which indicated that a high LD decay rate increases prediction accuracy.

In comparing the subsets of markers selected based on different LD levels and significance levels, we found there was a similar prediction accuracy for a complete set and subsets of markers selected based on LD. Thus, a haplotype block performed similar to a single marker. Adding more random markers in these conditions did not improve accuracy but may have increased error or noise. Poland et al. [31] and Spindel et al. [32] evaluated random subsets of markers and observed no change in accuracy. Prediction accuracies were increased when markers were selected that had some association with the phenotype instead of using all markers that may have created noise or error. In addition to subsets of markers evaluated at P-values of 0.05, 0.10, and 0.50, we also compared the effect of marker density of subsets of markers selected at 13 different levels of significance on prediction accuracy (Additional File 2, Fig. S1). Prediction accuracy increased as the significance level of markers decreased until P < 0.05, but there was no further increase in accuracy at lower P values. We conclude that significant markers should be selected up to a probability/significance level where they still have adequate genomic coverage. These results are consistent with previous research [30] in which there was greater accuracy when using QTL-linked markers than when using a random set of markers. The importance of including markers identified from QTL and association studies in prediction models was demonstrated when the QTL-linked markers were excluded from the models and there was a lower accuracy compared to other sets of markers [30].

As expected, higher prediction accuracies were observed for high heritability traits compared to low heritability traits. Similar results were observed in other studies where there was a strong relationship between prediction accuracy and trait heritability [27, 33,34,35]. Similar to broad-sense heritability, marker based narrow sense heritability varied among the traits in this study. There were strong positive correlations between marker based narrow sense heritability and prediction accuracy for all traits for all training-to-testing population proportions, indicating that marker based narrow sense heritability might be associated with prediction accuracy. Similar to accuracy, subsets of markers selected based on the different significance levels increased marker based narrow sense heritability, but LD based subsets of markers did not. Extra markers might be associated with an increase in error or noise from LD based subsets. We conclude that selecting training population proportions based on marker based narrow sense heritability may generally improve prediction accuracy.

Among all models, BayesB performed better than or equal to all other models, for all traits in all three crop species. The BayesB model performs both shrinkage and variable selection on markers included in the model [36]. In the BayesB model, the prior probability of a marker having a non-null effect (π) was set at 0.05, which might be associated with higher predictive ability values compared to higher prior setting. Results from this study agree with other studies, indicating that selecting a model that performs specific shrinkage and variable selection would improve prediction accuracy. For example, Bayesian Lasso and BayesB share some characteristics, and these models performed better than GBLUP, which assumes equal variance for each marker [23, 27]. The better performance of BayesB over other models was highly dependent on the presence of large QTL effects, which was demonstrated by Daetwyler et al. [14] through simulations. Several studies reported the better performance of BayesB over all models in genomic prediction of traits that are controlled by a few loci with large effects [14, 37, 38]. Habier et al. [24] provided another comparison between BayesB and rrBLUP models, indicating that BayesB uses LD between markers and QTL in making predictions, where RR-BLUP mainly captures the genetic relationships. Accuracies of the models using LD between markers and QTL persist for several generations, whereas accuracies of the models using genetic relationships decay over generations [24]. In this study, prediction accuracy was affected more by LD between the markers and QTLs than the genetic relationships.

The effect of different training population proportions on prediction accuracy was compared in this study for all traits in three crops by randomly repeating the simulations 10 times. We observed a difference in prediction accuracy among training population proportions that might be due to the random selection of the training population. A random population could have a different genetic diversity or population structure, which could have different marker-QTLs associations or marker effect sizes. Similar results of varied prediction accuracies due to different training populations were observed in other studies [39]. Charmet et al. [40] observed that predicted accuracy was not improved with an increase of the training population proportion. However, de Azevedo Peixoto et al. [41] observed an increase in prediction accuracy when the training population proportion increased.

Conclusions

In this study, we compared the prediction accuracy of different genomic prediction models for several traits differing in heritability in three crops varying in LD decays rates with contrasting genetic architecture using several subsets of markers and training population proportions. Among all models, Bayes B performed better than or equally well as all other models for all traits in three crop species. Higher prediction accuracy was observed in maize with a faster LD decay compared to slower LD decay in soybean and rice. Traits with higher broad or narrow sense heritability had higher prediction accuracy. Instead of using a complete set of markers, selecting subsets of markers based on the significance level increased prediction accuracy. Prediction accuracy was greatest for all crops when using a subset of markers that were significant at P ≤ 0.05. In contrast, subsets of markers selected based on the LD level did not show any change in the accuracy. Different training population proportions varied prediction accuracy for all traits in three crops.

Materials and methods

Plant materials and phenotypic traits

Data sets for three plant species that vary in LD decay rates were selected for our experiments: soybean (Glycine max L.), maize (Zea mays L.), and rice (Oryza sativa L.). For each crop, two traits were used that varied in broad-sense heritability (H2). For soybean, these traits included canopy wilting (CW, H2 = 80%, [19]) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C, H2 = 60%, [18]). For maize, traits evaluated were days to tasseling (DT, H2 = 85%) and ear height (EH, H2 = 65%) [20]. Lastly for rice, we evaluated panicles per plant (PPP, H2 = 80%) and seeds per plant (SPP, H2 = 55%) [21].

Soybean data consisted of 346 accessions that were used for association mapping of CW [19] and δ 13C [18]. Rice data consisted of 352 accessions that were obtained from the rice diversity database [21]. Maize data consisted of 279 accessions that were obtained from the Panzea database website [20]. Both maize (https://www.panzea.org/data) and rice data (http://ricediversity.org/data/) were publicly available and soybean data are included herein (Additional file 3).

Genotypic data

For all three crops, genotypic data were comprised of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). In soybean, SNP data were obtained using the application of Illumina Infinium SoySNP50K iSelect SNP BeadChip that provided 42,509 SNPs for all 346 accessions ([42, 43], and datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article (Additional Files 3 and 4).

Additional file 3). In maize, SNP data were obtained using the application of Illumina MaizeSNP50 BeadChip that provided 50,896 SNPs for all 273 accessions [20]. In rice, SNP data of 44,100 markers were obtained from two projects: OryzaSNP project, an oligomer array-based re-sequencing effort using Perlegen Sciences technology and BAC clone Sanger sequencing of wild species from OMAP project [21]. Quality control checks for the three species consisted of eliminating monomorphic markers, markers with minor allele frequency (MAF) ≤ 5%, and markers with a missing rate higher than 10%. Remaining marker datasets were imputed using an LD-kNNi method, which is based on a k-nearest-neighbor-genotype [44]. The final complete SNP marker datasets consisted of 31,260 SNPs for soybean, 48,833 SNPs for maize, and 34,848 SNPs for rice. A pairwise SNP LD decay among the markers for these crops was estimated, which indicated that the decay of LD to r2 = 0.25 level was much faster in maize (1 kb) than soybean (150 kb in euchromatic and 5 kb in heterochromatic regions) or rice (123 kb).

Genomic prediction models

Eleven different statistical models were compared for genomic predictions. These models differ with respect to assumptions about the markers as described in Additional File 1, Table S1. Prediction models were tested using different packages including sommer, rrBLUP, BGLR, plyr, MCMCglmm, EMMREML, and BLR in the R program.

Testing subsets of markers in prediction models

Ten different marker subsets were compared to evaluate the effects of marker distribution across the genome on the prediction accuracy. Subsetting markers was done based on two approaches: 1) linkage disequilibrium between markers and 2) markers that met a significance threshold. Linkage disequilibrium between markers, which defines a haplotype block, was evaluated using the correlation coefficient between alleles at a pair of genetic loci. Five LD based subsets of markers were selected from the haplotype block that was made using a correlation coefficient (r) of r ≥ 0.90, 0.80 ≤ r < 0.90, 0.70 ≤ r < 0.80, 0.60 ≤ r < 0.70, and 0.50 ≤ r < 0.60 between alleles. For simplicity, these subsets are subsequently referred to as 0.90, 0.80, 0.70, 0.60, and 0.50, respectively. For example, if a haplotype block consisted of five SNPs that were linked with each other at r ≥ 0.90, then only one SNP out of five was kept in the subset of markers.

In addition to selecting marker subsets based upon haplotype blocks, we also selected subsets of markers based on the P-value of the significant association of markers with a trait at probability levels of P < 0.5 (SNP_5), P < 0.1 (SNP_1), and P < 0.05 (SNP_05). The significant association between markers and traits was conducted using the Fixed and random model Circulating Probability Unification (FarmCPU) model [22]. One subset of markers consisted of non-significant SNP markers at P > 0.05 (SNP_NS). The F-test for two-samples of variance was conducted to compare the significant effect between the different sets of markers.

Testing the size of the training population and model validation

Three different sizes of training populations among these species were evaluated to determine the effect of the training population proportion on the genomic prediction accuracy. These three training population proportions consisted of 90 training to 10 testing set, 70 training to 30 testing set, and 50 training to 50 testing set. Random assignments of individuals to training and testing sets were repeated 10 times and the average value of the prediction accuracy are reported in this work. The correlation coefficient (r) between the GEBVs and observed phenotypic values was used to determines predictive ability (r), which was used as the indicator of prediction accuracy in this paper. This approach has been used previously by several groups [45, 46].

Estimation of narrow sense heritability

Marker-based narrow sense heritability (h2) was estimated to understand the variation and trend of predictive ability across traits [47] using the GAPIT R package. In the GAPIT package, the MLM model can be described as follows: Y = Xβ + Zu + e, where Y is the vector of observed phenotypes; β is an unknown vector containing fixed effects, including the genetic marker, population structure (Q), and the intercept; u is an unknown vector of random additive genetic effects from multiple background QTLs for individuals/lines; X and Z are the known design matrices; and e is the unobserved vector of residuals. The u and e vectors are assumed to be normally distributed with a null mean and a variance of: \(Var\ \left(\left.\begin{array}{c}u\\ {}e\end{array}\right)\right.=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G& 0\\ {}0& R\end{array}\right)\), where G = σ2aK with σ2 a as the additive genetic variance and K as the kinship matrix. Homogeneous variance was assumed for the residual effect (i.e., R = σ2eI, where σ2e is the residual variance). The proportion of the total variance explained by the genetic variance is defined as marker-based narrow sense heritability, which was calculated for all traits using different subsets of markers and different training-to-testing population proportions.

Availability of data and materials

All data analyzed during this study are included in this published article in are available in Additional file 3. Scripts used in our analyses are available in Additional file 4.

Abbreviations

QTL:

Quantitative trait locus/loci

LD:

Linkage disequilibrium

SNP:

Single nucleotide polymorphism

GEBV:

Genomic estimated breeding value

BLUP:

Best linear unbiased prediction

MAS:

Marker-assisted selection

LASSO:

Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator

PA:

Prediction accuracy

CW:

Canopy wilting

δ13C:

Carbon isotope ratio (δ13C)

PPP:

Panicles per plant

SPP:

And seeds per plant

DT:

Days to tasseling

EH:

Ear height

References

  1. Hazel L, Lush JL. The efficiency of three methods of selection. J Hered. 1942;33(11):393–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vieira R, Rocha R, Scapim C, Amaral A, Vivas M. Selection index based on the relative importance of traits and possibilities in breeding popcorn. Genet Mol Res. 2016;15(2):1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Henderson CR. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics. 1975;31(2):423–47.

  4. Lande R, Thompson R. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics. 1990;124(3):743–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Riedelsheimer C, Lisec J, Czedik-Eysenberg A, Sulpice R, Flis A, Grieder C, et al. Genome-wide association mapping of leaf metabolic profiles for dissecting complex traits in maize. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(23):8872–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hickey JM, Dreisigacker S, Crossa J, Hearne S, Babu R, Prasanna BM, et al. Evaluation of genomic selection training population designs and genotyping strategies in plant breeding programs using simulation. Crop Sci. 2014;54:1476–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bhat JA, Ali S, Salgotra RK, Mir ZA, Dutta S, Jadon V, et al. Genomic selection in the era of next generation sequencing for complex traits in plant breeding. Front Genet. 2016;7:221.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Meuwissen TH, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics. 2001;157(4):1819–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayes B, Goddard ME. The distribution of the effects of genes affecting quantitative traits in livestock. Genet Sel Evol. 2001;33(3):1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Heffner EL, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME. Genomic selection accuracy using multifamily prediction models in a wheat breeding program. Plant Genome. 2011;4(1).

  11. Neves HH, Carvalheiro R, Queiroz SA. A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population. BMC Genet. 2012;13(1):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Goddard M. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica. 2009;136(2):245–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pérez P, de Los CG, Crossa J, Gianola D. Genomic-enabled prediction based on molecular markers and pedigree using the Bayesian linear regression package in R. Plant Genome. 2010;3(2):106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA. The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics. 2010;185(3):1021–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Isidro J, Jannink J-L, Akdemir D, Poland J, Heslot N, Sorrells ME. Training set optimization under population structure in genomic selection. Theor Appl Genet. 2015;128(1):145–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hickey JM, 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):1297–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Vazquez A, Rosa G, Weigel K, De los Campos G, Gianola D, Allison D. Predictive ability of subsets of single nucleotide polymorphisms with and without parent average in US Holsteins. J Dairy Sci. 2010;93(12):5942–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaler AS, Dhanapal AP, Ray JD, King CA, Fritschi FB, Purcell LC. Genome-wide association mapping of carbon isotope and oxygen isotope ratios in diverse soybean genotypes. Crop Sci. 2017;57(6):3085–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaler AS, Ray JD, Schapaugh WT, King CA, Purcell LC. Genome-wide association mapping of canopy wilting in diverse soybean genotypes. Theor Appl Genet. 2017;130(10):2203–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wallace JG, Bradbury PJ, Zhang N, Gibon Y, Stitt M, Buckler ES. Association mapping across numerous traits reveals patterns of functional variation in maize. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(12):e1004845.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhao K, Tung C-W, Eizenga GC, Wright MH, Ali ML, Price AH, et al. Genome-wide association mapping reveals a rich genetic architecture of complex traits in Oryza sativa. Nat Commun. 2011;2(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu X, Huang M, Fan B, Buckler ES, Zhang Z. Iterative usage of fixed and random effect models for powerful and efficient genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet. 2016;12(2):e1005767.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Crossa J, Campos G, Pérez P, Gianola D, Burgueño J, Araus JL, et al. Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics. 2010;186(2):713–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JC. The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics. 2007;177(4):2389–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang X, Sang T, Zhao Q, Feng Q, Zhao Y, Li C, et al. Genome-wide association studies of 14 agronomic traits in rice landraces. Nat Genet. 2010;42(11):961–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tenaillon MI, Sawkins MC, Long AD, Gaut RL, Doebley JF, Gaut BS. Patterns of DNA sequence polymorphism along chromosome 1 of maize (Zea mays ssp. mays L.). Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98(16):9161–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Clark SA, Hickey JM, Daetwyler HD, van der Werf JH. The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes. Genet Sel Evol. 2012;44(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Buckler ES, Holland JB, Bradbury PJ, Acharya CB, Brown PJ, Browne C, et al. The genetic architecture of maize flowering time. Science. 2009;325(5941):714–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Burgueño J. de los Campos G, Weigel K, Crossa J: genomic prediction of breeding values when modeling genotype× environment interaction using pedigree and dense molecular markers. Crop Sci. 2012;52(2):707–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Thavamanikumar S, Dolferus R, Thumma BR. Comparison of genomic selection models to predict flowering time and spike grain number in two hexaploid wheat doubled haploid populations. G3 (Bethesda). 2015;5(10):1991–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Poland JA, Endelman J, Dawson J, Rutkoski J, Wu S, Manes Y, et al. Genomic selection in wheat breeding using genotyping-by-sequencing. Plant Genome. 2012;5(3):103–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Spindel J, Begum H, Akdemir D, Virk P, Collard B, Redona E, et al. Genomic selection and association mapping in rice (Oryza sativa): effect of trait genetic architecture, training population composition, marker number and statistical model on accuracy of rice genomic selection in elite, tropical rice breeding lines. PLoS Genet. 2015;11(2):e1004982.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Lorenz AJ, Chao S, Asoro FG, Heffner EL, Hayashi T, Iwata H, et al. Genomic selection in plant breeding: knowledge and prospects. Adv Agron. 2011;110:77–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Luan T, Woolliams JA, Lien S, Kent M, Svendsen M, Meuwissen TH. The accuracy of genomic selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation. Genetics. 2009;183(3):1119–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Nyine M, Uwimana B, Swennen R, Batte M, Brown A, Christelová P, et al. Trait variation and genetic diversity in a banana genomic selection training population. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178734.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Desta ZA, Ortiz R. Genomic selection: genome-wide prediction in plant improvement. Trends Plant Sci. 2014;19(9):592–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jannink J-L, Lorenz AJ, Iwata H. Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Brief Funct Genomics. 2010;9(2):166–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. VanRaden P, Van Tassell C, Wiggans G, Sonstegard T, Schnabel R, Taylor J, et al. Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for north American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92(1):16–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JC. Genomic selection using low-density marker panels. Genetics. 2009;182(1):343–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Charmet G, Storlie E, Oury FX, Laurent V, Beghin D, Chevarin L, et al. Genome-wide prediction of three important traits in bread wheat. Mol Breed. 2014;34(4):1843–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. de Azevedo PL, Moellers TC, Zhang J, Lorenz AJ, Bhering LL, Beavis WD, et al. Leveraging genomic prediction to scan germplasm collection for crop improvement. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Song Q, Hyten DL, Jia G, Quigley CV, Fickus EW, Nelson RL, et al. Development and evaluation of SoySNP50K, a high-density genotyping array for soybean. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54985.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Song Q, Hyten DL, Jia G, Quigley CV, Fickus EW, Nelson RL, et al. Fingerprinting soybean germplasm and its utility in genomic research. G3 (Bethesda). 2015;5(10):1999–2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Money D, Gardner K, Migicovsky Z, Schwaninger H, Zhong G-Y, Myles S. LinkImpute: fast and accurate genotype imputation for nonmodel organisms. G3 (Bethesda). 2015;5(11):2383–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Qin J, Shi A, Song Q, Li S, Wang F, Cao Y, et al. Genome wide association study and genomic selection of amino acid concentrations in soybean seeds. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:1445.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Ravelombola WS, Qin J, Shi A, Nice L, Bao Y, Lorenz A, et al. Genome-wide association study and genomic selection for soybean chlorophyll content associated with soybean cyst nematode tolerance. BMC Genomics. 2019;20(1):904.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kruijer W, Boer MP, Malosetti M, Flood PJ, Engel B, Kooke R, et al. Marker-based estimation of heritability in immortal populations. Genetics. 2015;199(2):379–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Mention of any trademark, vendor, or proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the USDA and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products or vendors that may also be suitable. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

Partial funding from this project was from the United Soybean Board (project #2120–172-0142). Additional funds were provided by the University of Arkansas System, Division of Agriculture and the USDA-ARS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72704, USA

    Avjinder S. Kaler & Larry C. Purcell

  2. Department of Crop Science & Center for Integrated Breeding Research, University of Goettingen, 37075, Goettingen, Germany

    Timothy Beissinger

  3. Plant Genetics Research Unit, USDA-ARS, 205 Curtis Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Jason D. Gillman

Authors
  1. Avjinder S. Kaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry C. Purcell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy Beissinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jason D. Gillman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AK wrote initial draft of the manuscript, and was primarily responsible for data analysis. JDG and TB contributed towards data evaluation and presentation. JDG and LP coordinated and supervised the project. All authors were involved in writing and editing and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason D. Gillman.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. This study complies with all relevant local and national regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Main features of thirteen genomic prediction models. Table S2. Markers distribution in the different subsets of markers, which were selected based on the two methods, linkage disequilibrium (LD) between markers and significant markers, in soybean for two traits including canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C). Table S3. Markers distribution in the different subsets of markers, which were selected based on the two methods, linkage disequilibrium (LD) between markers and significant markers, in maize for two traits including days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH). Table S4. Markers distribution in the different subsets of markers, which were selected based on the two methods, linkage disequilibrium (LD) between markers and significant markers, in rice for two traits including panicles per plant (PPP) and seeds per plant (SPP). Table S5. Correlations of narrow sense heritabilities and prediction accuracies of 11 different genomic prediction models for canopy wilting (CW) carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C), seeds per plant (SPP), panicles per plant (PPP), and days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH) at different training-to-testing proportions (90/10%, 70/30%, & 50/50%). Table S6. Prediction accuracy of genomic models for canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C) in soybean, and seeds per plant (SPP) and panicles per plant (PPP) in rice, and days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH) in maize using different subsets of markers at the 90/10% training-to-testing proportion. Table S7. Prediction accuracy of genomic models for canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C) in soybean, and seeds per plant (SPP) and panicles per plant (PPP) in rice, and days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH) in maize using different subsets of markers at the 70/30% training-to-testing proportion. Table S8. Prediction accuracy of genomic models for canopy wilting (CW) and carbon isotope ratio (δ 13C) in soybean, and seeds per plant (SPP) and panicles per plant (PPP) in rice, and days to tasseling (DT) and ear height (EH) in maize using different subsets of markers at the 50/50% training-to-testing proportion.

Additional file 2: Fig. S1.

Prediction accuracies for carbon isotope ratio (δ13) in soybean using BayesB model and a training-to-testing cross-validation proportion of 90:10%. Thirteen sets of marker subsets were selected based on the different significant levels including P < 0.001, P < 0.0025, P < 0.005, P < 0.0075, P < 0.01, P < 0.025, P < 0.05, P < 0.075, P < 0.1, P < 0.25, P < 0.5, P < 0.75, and complete set.

Additional file 3.

Zip file containing genotypic and phenotypic data files for three datasets: soybean, two traits (δ 13C and CW) and 42,509 SNPs for 346 accessions; maize, two traits (DT and EH) and 50,896 SNPs for 273 accessions; rice, two traits (PPP and SPP) and 44,100 markers from two projects: OryzaSNP project and OMAP project.

Additional file 4.

Zip file containing R scripts used in this study.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaler, A.S., Purcell, L.C., Beissinger, T. et al. Genomic prediction models for traits differing in heritability for soybean, rice, and maize. BMC Plant Biol 22, 87 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-022-03479-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-022-03479-y

Keywords

BMC Plant Biology

ISSN: 1471-2229

Contact us