Genomic and pedigree‐based predictive ability for quality traits in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze)
Genetic improvement of quality traits in tea ( Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) through conventional breeding methods has been limited, because tea quality is a difficult and expensive trait to measure. Genomic selection (GS) is suitable for predicting such complex traits, as it uses genome wide ma...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Euphytica 2021-03, Vol.217 (3), Article 32 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Euphytica |
container_volume | 217 |
creator | Lubanga, Nelson Massawe, Festo Mayes, Sean |
description | Genetic improvement of quality traits in tea (
Camellia sinensis
(L.) O. Kuntze) through conventional breeding methods has been limited, because tea quality is a difficult and expensive trait to measure. Genomic selection (GS) is suitable for predicting such complex traits, as it uses genome wide markers to estimate the genetic values of individuals. We compared the prediction accuracies of six genomic prediction models including Bayesian ridge regression (BRR), genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), BayesA, BayesB, BayesC and reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces models incorporating the pedigree relationship namely; RKHS-pedigree, RKHS-markers and RKHS markers and pedigree (RKHS-MP) to determine the breeding values for 12 tea quality traits. One hundred and three tea genotypes were genotyped using genotyping-by-sequencing and phenotyped using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in replicated trials. We also compared the effect of trait heritability and training population size on prediction accuracies. The traits with the highest prediction accuracies were; theogallin (0.59), epicatechin gallate (ECG) (0.56) and theobromine (0.61), while the traits with the lowest prediction accuracies were theanine (0.32) and caffeine (0.39). The performance of all the GS models were almost the same, with BRR (0.53), BayesA (0.52), GBLUP (0.50) and RKHS-MP (0.50) performing slightly better than the others. Heritability estimates were moderate to high (0.35–0.92). Prediction accuracies increased with increasing training population size and trait heritability. We conclude that the moderate to high prediction accuracies observed suggests GS is a promising approach in tea improvement and could be implemented in breeding programmes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10681-021-02774-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2487650118</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2487650118</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-30653753fa01e09cdba0a15a438acd32685544402d15f89080f62eb32a4399c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFKw0AQhhdRsFZfwNOCl3pInd3NbpKjFK1ioRc9L5tkUrakm3Y3EerJR_AZfRLTRvDmYZjh5___gY-QawZTBpDcBQYqZRHwwyRJHIkTMmIyEZEEBadkBMDiiAuhzslFCGsAyBIJI1LP0TUbW1DjSrrF0q484vfnV24C9oLvlaK170hNbmvb7mnVeLrrzPFuvbFtoNbRFg2dzMwG69oaGqxDF2ygk8X0li6n9KVz7QfeXpKzytQBr373mLw9PrzOnqLFcv48u19EhVCijQQoKRIpKgMMISvK3IBh0sQiNUUpuEqljOMYeMlklWaQQqU45oL3jiwrUjEmN0Pv1je7DkOr103nXf9S8zhNlATGDi4-uArfhOCx0ltvN8bvNQN9oKoHqrqnqo9UtehDYgiF3uxW6P-q_0n9ADG4eY0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2487650118</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Genomic and pedigree‐based predictive ability for quality traits in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze)</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Lubanga, Nelson ; Massawe, Festo ; Mayes, Sean</creator><creatorcontrib>Lubanga, Nelson ; Massawe, Festo ; Mayes, Sean</creatorcontrib><description>Genetic improvement of quality traits in tea (
Camellia sinensis
(L.) O. Kuntze) through conventional breeding methods has been limited, because tea quality is a difficult and expensive trait to measure. Genomic selection (GS) is suitable for predicting such complex traits, as it uses genome wide markers to estimate the genetic values of individuals. We compared the prediction accuracies of six genomic prediction models including Bayesian ridge regression (BRR), genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), BayesA, BayesB, BayesC and reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces models incorporating the pedigree relationship namely; RKHS-pedigree, RKHS-markers and RKHS markers and pedigree (RKHS-MP) to determine the breeding values for 12 tea quality traits. One hundred and three tea genotypes were genotyped using genotyping-by-sequencing and phenotyped using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in replicated trials. We also compared the effect of trait heritability and training population size on prediction accuracies. The traits with the highest prediction accuracies were; theogallin (0.59), epicatechin gallate (ECG) (0.56) and theobromine (0.61), while the traits with the lowest prediction accuracies were theanine (0.32) and caffeine (0.39). The performance of all the GS models were almost the same, with BRR (0.53), BayesA (0.52), GBLUP (0.50) and RKHS-MP (0.50) performing slightly better than the others. Heritability estimates were moderate to high (0.35–0.92). Prediction accuracies increased with increasing training population size and trait heritability. We conclude that the moderate to high prediction accuracies observed suggests GS is a promising approach in tea improvement and could be implemented in breeding programmes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0014-2336</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-5060</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10681-021-02774-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Bayesian analysis ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biotechnology ; Breeding ; Breeding methods ; Caffeine ; Camellia sinensis ; Epicatechin ; Genetic improvement ; Genomes ; Genomics ; Genotypes ; Genotyping ; Heritability ; Hilbert space ; Life Sciences ; Magnetic resonance spectroscopy ; Markers ; Mathematical models ; Model accuracy ; NMR ; NMR spectroscopy ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Pedigree ; Plant Genetics and Genomics ; Plant Pathology ; Plant Physiology ; Plant Sciences ; Population number ; Prediction models ; Regression analysis ; Tea ; Theanine ; Training</subject><ispartof>Euphytica, 2021-03, Vol.217 (3), Article 32</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-30653753fa01e09cdba0a15a438acd32685544402d15f89080f62eb32a4399c83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-30653753fa01e09cdba0a15a438acd32685544402d15f89080f62eb32a4399c83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10681-021-02774-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10681-021-02774-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lubanga, Nelson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Massawe, Festo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mayes, Sean</creatorcontrib><title>Genomic and pedigree‐based predictive ability for quality traits in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze)</title><title>Euphytica</title><addtitle>Euphytica</addtitle><description>Genetic improvement of quality traits in tea (
Camellia sinensis
(L.) O. Kuntze) through conventional breeding methods has been limited, because tea quality is a difficult and expensive trait to measure. Genomic selection (GS) is suitable for predicting such complex traits, as it uses genome wide markers to estimate the genetic values of individuals. We compared the prediction accuracies of six genomic prediction models including Bayesian ridge regression (BRR), genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), BayesA, BayesB, BayesC and reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces models incorporating the pedigree relationship namely; RKHS-pedigree, RKHS-markers and RKHS markers and pedigree (RKHS-MP) to determine the breeding values for 12 tea quality traits. One hundred and three tea genotypes were genotyped using genotyping-by-sequencing and phenotyped using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in replicated trials. We also compared the effect of trait heritability and training population size on prediction accuracies. The traits with the highest prediction accuracies were; theogallin (0.59), epicatechin gallate (ECG) (0.56) and theobromine (0.61), while the traits with the lowest prediction accuracies were theanine (0.32) and caffeine (0.39). The performance of all the GS models were almost the same, with BRR (0.53), BayesA (0.52), GBLUP (0.50) and RKHS-MP (0.50) performing slightly better than the others. Heritability estimates were moderate to high (0.35–0.92). Prediction accuracies increased with increasing training population size and trait heritability. We conclude that the moderate to high prediction accuracies observed suggests GS is a promising approach in tea improvement and could be implemented in breeding programmes.</description><subject>Bayesian analysis</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biotechnology</subject><subject>Breeding</subject><subject>Breeding methods</subject><subject>Caffeine</subject><subject>Camellia sinensis</subject><subject>Epicatechin</subject><subject>Genetic improvement</subject><subject>Genomes</subject><subject>Genomics</subject><subject>Genotypes</subject><subject>Genotyping</subject><subject>Heritability</subject><subject>Hilbert space</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance spectroscopy</subject><subject>Markers</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Model accuracy</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>NMR spectroscopy</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Pedigree</subject><subject>Plant Genetics and Genomics</subject><subject>Plant Pathology</subject><subject>Plant Physiology</subject><subject>Plant Sciences</subject><subject>Population number</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Tea</subject><subject>Theanine</subject><subject>Training</subject><issn>0014-2336</issn><issn>1573-5060</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFKw0AQhhdRsFZfwNOCl3pInd3NbpKjFK1ioRc9L5tkUrakm3Y3EerJR_AZfRLTRvDmYZjh5___gY-QawZTBpDcBQYqZRHwwyRJHIkTMmIyEZEEBadkBMDiiAuhzslFCGsAyBIJI1LP0TUbW1DjSrrF0q484vfnV24C9oLvlaK170hNbmvb7mnVeLrrzPFuvbFtoNbRFg2dzMwG69oaGqxDF2ygk8X0li6n9KVz7QfeXpKzytQBr373mLw9PrzOnqLFcv48u19EhVCijQQoKRIpKgMMISvK3IBh0sQiNUUpuEqljOMYeMlklWaQQqU45oL3jiwrUjEmN0Pv1je7DkOr103nXf9S8zhNlATGDi4-uArfhOCx0ltvN8bvNQN9oKoHqrqnqo9UtehDYgiF3uxW6P-q_0n9ADG4eY0</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Lubanga, Nelson</creator><creator>Massawe, Festo</creator><creator>Mayes, Sean</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>Genomic and pedigree‐based predictive ability for quality traits in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze)</title><author>Lubanga, Nelson ; Massawe, Festo ; Mayes, Sean</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-30653753fa01e09cdba0a15a438acd32685544402d15f89080f62eb32a4399c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Bayesian analysis</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biotechnology</topic><topic>Breeding</topic><topic>Breeding methods</topic><topic>Caffeine</topic><topic>Camellia sinensis</topic><topic>Epicatechin</topic><topic>Genetic improvement</topic><topic>Genomes</topic><topic>Genomics</topic><topic>Genotypes</topic><topic>Genotyping</topic><topic>Heritability</topic><topic>Hilbert space</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance spectroscopy</topic><topic>Markers</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Model accuracy</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>NMR spectroscopy</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Pedigree</topic><topic>Plant Genetics and Genomics</topic><topic>Plant Pathology</topic><topic>Plant Physiology</topic><topic>Plant Sciences</topic><topic>Population number</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Tea</topic><topic>Theanine</topic><topic>Training</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lubanga, Nelson</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Massawe, Festo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mayes, Sean</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Euphytica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lubanga, Nelson</au><au>Massawe, Festo</au><au>Mayes, Sean</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Genomic and pedigree‐based predictive ability for quality traits in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze)</atitle><jtitle>Euphytica</jtitle><stitle>Euphytica</stitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>217</volume><issue>3</issue><artnum>32</artnum><issn>0014-2336</issn><eissn>1573-5060</eissn><abstract>Genetic improvement of quality traits in tea (
Camellia sinensis
(L.) O. Kuntze) through conventional breeding methods has been limited, because tea quality is a difficult and expensive trait to measure. Genomic selection (GS) is suitable for predicting such complex traits, as it uses genome wide markers to estimate the genetic values of individuals. We compared the prediction accuracies of six genomic prediction models including Bayesian ridge regression (BRR), genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), BayesA, BayesB, BayesC and reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces models incorporating the pedigree relationship namely; RKHS-pedigree, RKHS-markers and RKHS markers and pedigree (RKHS-MP) to determine the breeding values for 12 tea quality traits. One hundred and three tea genotypes were genotyped using genotyping-by-sequencing and phenotyped using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in replicated trials. We also compared the effect of trait heritability and training population size on prediction accuracies. The traits with the highest prediction accuracies were; theogallin (0.59), epicatechin gallate (ECG) (0.56) and theobromine (0.61), while the traits with the lowest prediction accuracies were theanine (0.32) and caffeine (0.39). The performance of all the GS models were almost the same, with BRR (0.53), BayesA (0.52), GBLUP (0.50) and RKHS-MP (0.50) performing slightly better than the others. Heritability estimates were moderate to high (0.35–0.92). Prediction accuracies increased with increasing training population size and trait heritability. We conclude that the moderate to high prediction accuracies observed suggests GS is a promising approach in tea improvement and could be implemented in breeding programmes.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10681-021-02774-3</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0014-2336 |
ispartof | Euphytica, 2021-03, Vol.217 (3), Article 32 |
issn | 0014-2336 1573-5060 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2487650118 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Bayesian analysis Biomedical and Life Sciences Biotechnology Breeding Breeding methods Caffeine Camellia sinensis Epicatechin Genetic improvement Genomes Genomics Genotypes Genotyping Heritability Hilbert space Life Sciences Magnetic resonance spectroscopy Markers Mathematical models Model accuracy NMR NMR spectroscopy Nuclear magnetic resonance Pedigree Plant Genetics and Genomics Plant Pathology Plant Physiology Plant Sciences Population number Prediction models Regression analysis Tea Theanine Training |
title | Genomic and pedigree‐based predictive ability for quality traits in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T23%3A34%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Genomic%20and%20pedigree%E2%80%90based%20predictive%20ability%20for%20quality%20traits%20in%20tea%20(Camellia%20sinensis%20(L.)%20O.%20Kuntze)&rft.jtitle=Euphytica&rft.au=Lubanga,%20Nelson&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=217&rft.issue=3&rft.artnum=32&rft.issn=0014-2336&rft.eissn=1573-5060&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10681-021-02774-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2487650118%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2487650118&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |