Scinovex
articleTop 1% cited

Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: A Comparison of Models

Crop Science · 2011 · Vol. 52(1) · pp. 146–160
Nicolas HeslotHsiao‐Pei YangMark E. SorrellsJean‐Luc Jannink

Abstract

ABSTRACT Simulation and empirical studies of genomic selection (GS) show accuracies sufficient to generate rapid genetic gains. However, with the increased popularity of GS approaches, numerous models have been proposed and no comparative analysis is available to identify the most promising ones. Using eight wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh., and maize ( Zea mays L.) datasets, the predictive ability of currently available GS models along with several machine learning methods was evaluated by comparing accuracies, the genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs), and the marker effects for each model. While a similar level of accuracy was observed for many models, the level of overfitting varied widely as did the computation time and the distribution of marker effect estimates. Our comparisons suggested that GS in plant breeding programs could be based on a reduced set of models such as the Bayesian Lasso, weighted Bayesian shrinkage regression (wBSR, a fast version of BayesB), and random forest (RF) (a machine learning method that could capture nonadditive effects). Linear combinations of different models were tested as well as bagging and boosting methods, but they did not improve accuracy. This study also showed large differences in accuracy between subpopulations within a dataset that could not always be explained by differences in phenotypic variance and size. The broad diversity of empirical datasets tested here adds evidence that GS could increase genetic gain per unit of time and cost.

Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetics and Plant BreedingGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsBiologyHordeum vulgareOverfittingRandom forestLasso (programming language)Genomic selectionBayesian probabilitySelection (genetic algorithm)Plant breedingArtificial intelligence

Funding

  • Microsoft
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Citations
671
FWCI
19.00
field-weighted impact
References
63
Percentile
99%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
Model-Based Clustering, Discriminant Analysis, and Density Estimation
Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2002 · 4,208 citations
Genomic Selection for Crop Improvement
Crop Science · 2009 · 1,657 citations
Regularization and Variable Selection Via the Elastic Net
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · 2005 · 20,431 citations
Related articles
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.