Genetic evaluation of inbred plants based on BLUP of breeding value and general combining ability
José Marcelo Soriano Viana A D , Ramon Vinícius de Almeida A , Vinícius Ribeiro Faria A , Marcos Deon Vilela de Resende B and Fabyano Fonseca e Silva CA Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Departamento de Biologia Geral, 36570-000, Viçosa, MG, Brazil.
B Embrapa Florestas; Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Departamento de Engenharia Florestal, 36570-000, Viçosa, MG, Brazil.
C Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Departamento de Estatística, 36570-000, Viçosa, MG, Brazil.
D Corresponding author. Email: jmsviana@ufv.br
Crop and Pasture Science 62(6) 515-522 https://doi.org/10.1071/CP11016
Submitted: 28 January 2011 Accepted: 25 May 2011 Published: 7 July 2011
Abstract
The testcross method is considered efficient for identifying inbred families with superior general combining ability. The objective of the present study was to assess the relative importance of the performance per se and in crossing in the selection of inbred progenies using bi-trait best linear unbiased prediction. We analysed data for expansion volume (EV) and grain yield from three tests of popcorn (Zea mays L. ssp. everta) S3 families and seven testcross trials, using the ASRemL software. Four selection strategies were assessed based on: breeding value (strategy 1), general combining ability effect (GCA) (strategy 2), additive value and GCA from strategies 1 and 2 (strategy 3), and breeding value and GCA predicted by bi-trait analyses considering EV and yield of the families and testcrosses as different traits (strategy 4). The bi-trait analyses of the same characteristic assessed in S3 families and topcrosses were generally more accurate and had greater heritabilites. The greatest predicted gains in EV were obtained using strategy 4, which was inferior to the other strategies for the yield predicted gains. Strategies 1 and 2 differed most for the families selected. Selection based on GCA maximised heterosis. All of the strategies resulted in comparable realised gains, especially the strategies 3 and 4 based on breeding value and GCA. Selection on S3 based on the additive value and GCA (strategies 3 and 4) resulted in inbred lines superior in number of favourable genes and in general combining ability.
Additional keywords: inbred family, testcross, bi-trait analysis.
References
Baktash FY, Younis MA, Al-Younis AH (1981) Correlation coefficients between topcrosses and diallel crosses in corn (Zea mays L.). Mesopotamia Journal of Agriculture 15, 51–58.Bauman LF (1981) Review of methods used by breeders to develop superior corn inbreds. In ‘Proceedings of the 36th Annual Corn and Sorghum Industry Research Conference’. pp. 199–208. (American Seed Trade Association: Washington, DC)
Bekavac G, Purar B, Jockovic D (2008) Relationships between line per se and testcross performance for agronomic traits in two broad-based populations of maize. Euphytica 162, 363–369.
| Relationships between line per se and testcross performance for agronomic traits in two broad-based populations of maize.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bernardo R (1991) Correlation between testcross performance of lines at early and late selfing generations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 82, 17–21.
| Correlation between testcross performance of lines at early and late selfing generations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bernardo R (1994) Prediction of maize single-cross performance using RFLPs and information from related hybrids. Crop Science 34, 20–25.
| Prediction of maize single-cross performance using RFLPs and information from related hybrids.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bohn M, Magg T, Klein D, Melchinger AE (2003) Breeding early maturing European dent maize (Zea mays L.) for improved agronomic performance and resistance against the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis HB.). Maydica 48, 239–247.
Bordes J, Charmet G, de Vaulx RD, Lapierre A, Pollacsek M, Beckert M, Gallais A (2007) Doubled-haploid versus single-seed descent and S-1-family variation. Euphytica 154, 41–51.
| Doubled-haploid versus single-seed descent and S-1-family variation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cowen NM (1987) Testcross selection theory. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 73, 371–378.
| Testcross selection theory.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cullis BR, Smith AB, Coombes NE (2006) On the design of early generation variety trials with correlated data. Journal of Agricultural, Biological & Environmental Statistics 11, 381–393.
| On the design of early generation variety trials with correlated data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davis RL (1927) Report of the plant breeder. In ‘Annual reports’. pp. 14–15. (Agricultural Experiment Station: Puerto Rico)
de Boer IJM, van Arendonk JAM (1992) Prediction of additive and dominance effects in selected or unselected populations with inbreeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 84, 451–459.
Elias HT, Carvalho SP, André CGM (2000) Comparação de testadores na avaliação de famílias S2 de milho. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 35, 1135–1142.
| Comparação de testadores na avaliação de famílias S2 de milho.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gallais A (1997) Combined testcross and S-1 selection for the improvement of testcross and inbred performances. Crop Science 37, 1126–1133.
| Combined testcross and S-1 selection for the improvement of testcross and inbred performances.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2009) ‘ASReml User Guide Release 3.0.’ (VSN International Ltd: Hemel Hempstead, UK)
Gustafson TJ, Coors JC, de Leon N (2010) Selection for forage yield and composition on the Wisconsin Quality Synthetic maize population. Crop Science 50, 1795–1804.
| Selection for forage yield and composition on the Wisconsin Quality Synthetic maize population.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hallauer AR, Lopez-Perez E (1979) Comparisons among testers for evaluating lines of corn. In ‘Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hybrid Corn Industry Research Conference’. pp. 57–75. (Pioneer Hi-Bred: Washington, DC)
Hallauer AR, Miranda Filho JB (1988) ‘Quantitative genetics in maize breeding.’ 2nd edn (Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA)
Henderson CR (1974) General flexibility of linear model techniques for sire evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 57, 963–972.
| General flexibility of linear model techniques for sire evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hull FH (1945) Recurrent selection for specific combining ability in corn. Journal - American Society of Agronomy 37, 134–145.
Lile SM, Hallauer AR (1994) Relation between S2 and later generation testcrosses of two corn populations. The Journal of the Iowa Academy of Science 101, 19–23.
Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) ‘SAS for mixed models.’ 2nd edn (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC)
Menkir A, Kling JG (1999) Effect of reciprocal recurrent selection on grain yield and other traits in two early-maturing maize populations. Maydica 44, 159–165.
Mihaljevic R, Schon CC, Utz HF, Melchinger AE (2005) Correlations and QTL correspondence between line per se and testcross performance for agronomic traits in four populations of European maize. Crop Science 45, 114–122.
Mrode RA (2005) ‘Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values.’ 2nd edn (CABI Publishing: Oxfordshire, UK)
Mulamba NN, Mock JJ (1978) Improvement of yield potential of Eto Blanco maize (Zea mays L.) population by breeding for plant traits. Egyptian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 1, 40–57.
Obaidi M, Johnson BE, Van Vleck LD, Kachman SD, Smith OS (1998) Family per se response to selling and selection in maize based on testcross performance: a simulation study. Crop Science 38, 367–371.
| Family per se response to selling and selection in maize based on testcross performance: a simulation study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Patterson HD, Thompson R (1971) Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58, 545–554.
| Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Piepho HP, Möhring J, Melchinger AE, Büchse A (2008) BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161, 209–228.
| BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schaeffer LR (1984) Sire and cow evaluation under multiple trait models. Journal of Dairy Science 67, 1567–1580.
| Sire and cow evaluation under multiple trait models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Viana JMS, Almeida IF, de Resende MDV, Faria VR, Silva FF (2010a) BLUP for genetic evaluation of plants in non-inbred families of annual crops. Euphytica 174, 31–39.
| BLUP for genetic evaluation of plants in non-inbred families of annual crops.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Viana JMS, Sobreira FM, Resende MDV, Faria VR (2010b) Multi-trait BLUP in half-sib selection of annual crops. Plant Breeding 129, 599–604.
| Multi-trait BLUP in half-sib selection of annual crops.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Viana JMS, Faria VR, Silva FF, Resende MDV (2011) Best linear unbiased prediction and family selection in crop species. Crop Science, (In press).
Wright AJ (1980) The expected efficiencies of half-sib, testcross and S1 progeny testing methods in single population improvement. Heredity 45, 361–376.
| The expected efficiencies of half-sib, testcross and S1 progeny testing methods in single population improvement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
