Training Set Construction for Genomic Prediction in Auto-Tetraploids: An Example in Potato

被引:0
|
作者
Wilson, Stefan [1 ]
Malosetti, Marcos [1 ]
Maliepaard, Chris [2 ]
Mulder, Han A. [3 ]
Visser, Richard G. F. [2 ]
van Eeuwijk, Fred [1 ]
机构
[1] Wageningen Univ & Res, Biometris, Wageningen, Netherlands
[2] Wageningen Univ & Res, Plant Breeding, Wageningen, Netherlands
[3] Wageningen Univ & Res, Anim Breeding & Genom, Wageningen, Netherlands
来源
FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE | 2021年 / 12卷
关键词
training set construction; potato; sampling technique(s); genomic prediction (GP); auto-tetraploid; POPULATION-STRUCTURE; GENETIC-DISTANCE; R-PACKAGE; SELECTION; REGRESSION; PLANT; INDIVIDUALS; TRAITS;
D O I
10.3389/fpls.2021.771075
中图分类号
Q94 [植物学];
学科分类号
071001 ;
摘要
Training set construction is an important prerequisite to Genomic Prediction (GP), and while this has been studied in diploids, polyploids have not received the same attention. Polyploidy is a common feature in many crop plants, like for example banana and blueberry, but also potato which is the third most important crop in the world in terms of food consumption, after rice and wheat. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of different training set construction methods using a publicly available diversity panel of tetraploid potatoes. Four methods of training set construction were compared: simple random sampling, stratified random sampling, genetic distance sampling and sampling based on the coefficient of determination (CDmean). For stratified random sampling, population structure analyses were carried out in order to define sub-populations, but since sub-populations accounted for only 16.6% of genetic variation, there were negligible differences between stratified and simple random sampling. For genetic distance sampling, four genetic distance measures were compared and though they performed similarly, Euclidean distance was the most consistent. In the majority of cases the CDmean method was the best sampling method, and compared to simple random sampling gave improvements of 4-14% in cross-validation scenarios, and 2-8% in scenarios with an independent test set, while genetic distance sampling gave improvements of 5.5-10.5% and 0.4-4.5%. No interaction was found between sampling method and the statistical model for the traits analyzed.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 7 条
  • [1] Sample size determination for training set optimization in genomic prediction
    Wu, Po-Ya
    Ou, Jen-Hsiang
    Liao, Chen-Tuo
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS, 2023, 136 (03)
  • [2] Genomic prediction and training set optimization in a structured Mediterranean oat population
    Rio, Simon
    Gallego-Sanchez, Luis
    Montilla-Bascon, Gracia
    Canales, Francisco J.
    Sanchez, Julio Isidro y
    Prats, Elena
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS, 2021, 134 (11) : 3595 - 3609
  • [3] Training set optimization of genomic prediction by means of EthAcc
    Mangin, Brigitte
    Rincent, Renaud
    Rabier, Charles-Elie
    Moreau, Laurence
    Goudemand-Dugue, Ellen
    PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (02):
  • [4] Genomic prediction in hybrid breeding: I. Optimizing the training set design
    Melchinger, Albrecht E. E.
    Fernando, Rohan
    Stricker, Christian
    Schoen, Chris-Carolin
    Auinger, Hans-Juergen
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS, 2023, 136 (08)
  • [5] Sparse kernel models provide optimization of training set design for genomic prediction in multiyear wheat breeding data
    Lopez-Cruz, Marco
    Dreisigacker, Susanne
    Crespo-Herrera, Leonardo
    Bentley, Alison R.
    Singh, Ravi
    Poland, Jesse
    Shrestha, Sandesh
    Huerta-Espino, Julio
    Govindan, Velu
    Juliana, Philomin
    Mondal, Suchismita
    Perez-Rodriguez, Paulino
    Crossa, Jose
    PLANT GENOME, 2022, 15 (04)
  • [6] Forecasting the accuracy of genomic prediction with different selection targets in the training and prediction set as well as truncation selection
    Schopp, Pascal
    Riedelsheimer, Christian
    Utz, H. Friedrich
    Schoen, Chris-Carolin
    Melchinger, Albrecht E.
    THEORETICAL AND APPLIED GENETICS, 2015, 128 (11) : 2189 - 2201
  • [7] A Function Accounting for Training Set Size and Marker Density to Model the Average Accuracy of Genomic Prediction
    Erbe, Malena
    Gredler, Birgit
    Seefried, Franz Reinhold
    Bapst, Beat
    Simianer, Henner
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (12):