Paper · 2011 · University writing server of the University of Hohenheim (Universität Hohenheim)

Optimizing the prediction of genotypic values accounting for spatial trend andpopulation structure

Bettina U. Müller

8
claims
8
verbatim quotes
1
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Different effects, like the design of the field trial, agricultural practice, competition between neighboured plots, climate as well as the spatial trend, have an influence on the non-genotypic variation of the genotype. This effects influence the prediction of the genotypic value by the non-genotypic variation. The error, which results from the influence of the non-genotypic variation, can be separated from the phenotypic value by field design and statistical models. The integration of different information, like spatial trend or marker, can lead to an improved prediction of genotypic values. The present work consists of four studies from the area of plant breeding and crop science, in which the prediction of the genotypic values was optimized with inclusion of the above mentioned aspects. Goals of the work were: (1) to compare the different spatial models and to find one model, which is applicable as routine in plant breeding analysis, (2) to optimize the analysis of unreplicated trials of plant breeding experiments by improving the allocation of replicated check genotypes, (3) to improve the analysis of intercropping experiments by using spatial models and to detect the neighbour effect between the different cultivars, and (4) to optimize the calculation of the genome-wide error rate in association mapping experiments by using an approach which regards the population structure. Different spatial models and a baseline model, which reflects the randomization of the field trial, were compared in three of the four studies. In one study the models were compared on basis of different efficiency criteria with the goal to find a model, which is applicable as routine in plant breeding experiments. In the second study the different spatial models and the baseline model were compared on unreplicated trials, which are used in the early generation of the plant breeding process. Adjacent to the comparison of the models in this study different designs were compared with the goal to see if a non-systematic allocation of check genotypes is more preferable than a systematic allocation of check genotypes. In the third study these different models were tested for intercropping experiments. In this study it should be tested, if an improvement is expectable for these non randomized or restricted randomized trials by using a spatial analysis. The results of the three studies are that no spatial model could be found, which is preferable over all other spatial models. In a lot of cases the baseline model, which regards only the randomization, but no spatial trend, was better than the spatial models, also for the restricted or non-randomized intercropping trials. In all three studies the basic principle was followed to start first with the baseline model, which is based on the randomization theory, and then to extend it by spatial trend, if the model fit can be improved. In the second study the systematic and non-systematic allocation of check plots in unreplicated trials were compared to solve the question if a non-systematic allocation leads to more efficient estimates of genotypes as the systematic allocation. The non-systematic allocation of check plots led to an unbiased estimation in three of four uniformity trials. As well as in the third study an analysis was done, if the border plots of the different cultivars are influenced by the neighboured cultivar and if there are significant differences to the inner plot. The position of the cultivars, border plot or inner plot, had a significant influence of the yield. If maize was cultivated adjacent to pea, the yield of the border plot of maize was much higher than the inner plot of maize. When wheat was cultivated behind maize, there were no significant differences in the yield, if the plot was a border plot or inner plot. In addition to optimizing the field design for unreplicated trials and the extension of the models by spatial trend the marker information was integrated in a fourth study. An approach was proposed in this study, which calculates the genome wide error for association mapping experiments and accounts for the population structure. Advantages of this approach in contrast to previously published approaches are that the approach on the one hand is not too conservative and on the other hand accounts the population structure. The adherence of the genome wide error rate was tested on three datasets, which were provided by different plant breeding companies. The results of these studies, which were obtained in this thesis, show that by the different extensions, like integration of spatial trend and marker information, and modifications of the field design, an improved prediction of the genotypic values can be achieved.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 8

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No spatial model was preferable to all others.

Outcome
no spatial model could be found, which is preferable over all other spatial modelse0
Comparator
other spatial modelse0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“no spatial model could be found, which is preferable over all other spatial models”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2407–2489 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The randomization based baseline model often performed better than spatial models, including in intercropping trials.

Outcome
baseline modele0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
spatial modelse0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“In a lot of cases the baseline model, which regards only the randomization, but no spatial trend, was better than the spatial models, also for the restricted or non-randomized intercropping trials”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2491–2687 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-systematic check-plot allocation gave unbiased estimates in three of four uniformity trials.

Outcome
unbiased estimatione0
Value
three of four uniformity trialse0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“The non-systematic allocation of check plots led to an unbiased estimation in three of four uniformity trials”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3148–3257 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Border versus inner plot position significantly influenced yield.

Organ / stage
border plot or inner plote0
Outcome
yielde0

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The position of the cultivars, border plot or inner plot, had a significant influence of the yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3461–3559 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize border plots adjacent to pea yielded much more than inner maize plots.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
peaLathyrus oleraceuse0other
Outcome
yield of the border plot of maizee0
Direction
much highere0
Comparator
inner plot of maizee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · InteractorRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“If maize was cultivated adjacent to pea, the yield of the border plot of maize was much higher than the inner plot of maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3561–3684 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat plots behind maize had no significant border versus inner plot yield difference.

Interactor
maizeZea mayse0other
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
no significant differencese0
Comparator
border plot or inner plote0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · InteractorAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When wheat was cultivated behind maize, there were no significant differences in the yield, if the plot was a border plot or inner plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 3686–3821 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The proposed genome-wide error method accounts for population structure without being too conservative.

Outcome
not too conservative and on the other hand accounts the population structuree0
Comparator
previously published approachese0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Advantages of this approach in contrast to previously published approaches are that the approach on the one hand is not too conservative and on the other hand accounts the population structure”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4154–4346 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spatial trend, marker information, and field design changes improved genotypic value prediction.

Outcome
prediction of the genotypic valuese0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
different extensionse0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“by the different extensions, like integration of spatial trend and marker information, and modifications of the field design, an improved prediction of the genotypic values can be achieved”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 4557–4745 · show in text ↑