Abstract
AbstractAlthough energycane (Saccharum spp. hybrids) is widely used as a source of lignocellulosic biomass for bioethanol, breeding this crop for disease resistance is challenging due to its narrow genetic base. Therefore, efforts are underway to introgress novel sources of genetic resistance from Miscanthus into energycane. Given that disease resistance in energycane could be either qualitative or quantitative in nature, careful examination of a wide variety of genomic-enabled breeding approaches will be crucial to the success of such an undertaking. Here we examined the efficiency of both genomic selection (GS) and marker-assisted selection (MAS) for traits simulated under different genetic architectures in F1 and BC1 populations of Miscanthus × Miscanthus and sugarcane × sugarcane crosses. We observed that the performance of MAS was comparable and sometimes superior to GS for traits simulated with four quantitative trait nucleotides (QTNs). In contrast, as the number of simulated QTN increased, all four GS models that were evaluated tended to outperform MAS, select more phenotypically optimal F1 individuals, and accurately predict simulated trait values in subsequent BC1 generations. We therefore conclude that GS is preferable to MAS for introgressing genetic sources of horizontal disease resistance from Miscanthus to energycane, while MAS remains a suitable option for introgressing vertical disease resistance.
Funder
U.S. Department of Energy
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Plant Science,Genetics,Agronomy and Crop Science,Molecular Biology,Biotechnology
Reference77 articles.
1. Annicchiarico P, Nazzicari N, Li X, Wei Y, Pecetti L, Brummer EC (2015) Accuracy of genomic selection for alfalfa biomass yield in different reference populations. BMC Genomics 16:1020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-2212-y
2. Arruda MP, Brown PJ, Lipka AE et al (2015) Genomic selection for predicting head blight resistance in a wheat breeding program. Plant Genome 8:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2015.01.0003
3. Battenfield SD, Guzmán C, Gaynor RC et al (2016) Genomic selection for processing and end-use quality traits in the CIMMYT spring bread wheat breeding program. Plant Genome 9:0. https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2016.01.0005
4. Beavis WD (1998) QTL analyses: power, precision, and accuracy. In: Molecular dissection of complex traits. CRC Press, New York
5. Beavis WD (1995) The power and deceit of QTL experiments: lessons from comparative QTL studies. In: Proceedings of the Forty-ninth Annual Corn and Sorghum Industry Research Conference. ASTA, Washington, pp 252–268
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献