Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;126(1):92-106.
doi: 10.1038/s41437-020-00353-1. Epub 2020 Aug 27.

Nonlinear kernels, dominance, and envirotyping data increase the accuracy of genome-based prediction in multi-environment trials

Affiliations

Nonlinear kernels, dominance, and envirotyping data increase the accuracy of genome-based prediction in multi-environment trials

Germano Costa-Neto et al. Heredity (Edinb). 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Modern whole-genome prediction (WGP) frameworks that focus on multi-environment trials (MET) integrate large-scale genomics, phenomics, and envirotyping data. However, the more complex the statistical model, the longer the computational processing times, which do not always result in accuracy gains. We investigated the use of new kernel methods and modeling structures involving genomics and nongenomic sources of variation in two MET maize data sets. Five WGP models were considered, advancing in complexity from a main-effect additive model (A) to more complex structures, including dominance deviations (D), genotype × environment interaction (AE and DE), and the reaction-norm model using environmental covariables (W) and their interaction with A and D (AW + DW). A combination of those models built with three different kernel methods, Gaussian kernel (GK), Deep kernel (DK), and the benchmark genomic best linear-unbiased predictor (GBLUP/GB), was tested under three prediction scenarios: newly developed hybrids (CV1), sparse MET conditions (CV2), and new environments (CV0). GK and DK outperformed GB in prediction accuracy and reduction of computation time (~up to 20%) under all model-kernel scenarios. GK was more efficient in capturing the variation due to A + AE and D + DE effects and translated it into accuracy gains (~up to 85% compared with GB). DK provided more consistent predictions, even for more complex structures such as W + AW + DW. Our results suggest that DK and GK are more efficient in translating model complexity into accuracy, and more suitable for including dominance and reaction-norm effects in a biologically accurate and faster way.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Partition of the variance components related to the different genetics, environmental, and residual sources of variation.
Each panel is based on the combination of the five WGP models (vertical titles) built with the three different kernel methods (x axis) over HEL and USP data sets (horizontal titles).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Resolution of the genomic-enabled models and kernel methods in predicting genotypes in novel environments.
a Predictive ability of specific hybrids (each row) involving (q − 1) tested environments plus a one novel environment for sets HEL and USP, respectively; b typology of predictive abilities for sets HEL and USP, respectively. Predictive ability values are represented from warm colors (red, worst results) to cold colors (blue and purple, better results).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Joint accuracy trends of best combinations of kernel method and model in predicting novel environments (CV0) for both maize data sets (HEL and USP).
On the X axis, the environments were ordered from less predictable (S4) to higher predictable (S3). Environments with the acronym S denote sites (from 1 to 5, in the HEL set) and with E denoting environments (from 1 to 8, in the USP set).

References

    1. Acosta-Pech R, Crossa J, de los Campos G, Teyssèdre S, Claustres B, Pérez-Elizalde S, et al. Genomic models with genotype × environment interaction for predicting hybrid performance: an application in maize hybrids. Theor Appl Genet. 2017;130:1431–1440. - PubMed
    1. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration – guidelines for computing crop water requirements. 56th edn. (Food and Agriculture Organization, Ed.). FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 56, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/x0490e/x0490e00.htm
    1. Alves FC, Granato ÍSC, Galli G, Lyra DH, Fritsche-Neto R, De Los Campos G. Bayesian analysis and prediction of hybrid performance. Plant Methods. 2019;15:1–18. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Azevedo CF, de Resende MDV, E Silva FF, Viana JMS, Valente MSF, Resende MFR, et al. Ridge, Lasso and Bayesian additive-dominance genomic models. BMC Genet. 2015;16:1–13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basnet BR, Crossa J, Dreisigacker S, Pérez‐Rodríguez P, Manes Y, Singh RP, et al. Hybrid wheat prediction using genomic, pedigree, and environmental covariables interaction models. Plant Genome. 2019;12:1–13. - PubMed

Publication types