On the usefulness of parental lines GWAS for predicting low heritability traits in tropical maize hybrids

Giovanni Galli; Filipe Couto Alves; Júlia Silva Morosini; Roberto Fritsche-Neto

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0228724

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) is one of the most popular methods of studying the genetic control of traits. This methodology has been intensely performed on inbred genotypes to identify causal variants. Nonetheless, the lack of covariance between the phenotype of inbred lines and their offspring in cross-pollinated species (such as maize) raises questions on the applicability of these findings in a hybrid breeding context. To address this topic, we incorporated previously reported parental lines GWAS information into the prediction of a low heritability trait in hybrids. This was done by marker-assisted selection based on significant markers identified in the lines and by genomic prediction having these markers as fixed effects. Additive-dominance GWAS of hybrids, a non-conventional procedure, was also performed for comparison purposes. Our results suggest that incorporating information from parental inbred lines GWAS led to decreases in the predictive ability of hybrids. Correspondingly, inbred lines and hybrids-based GWAS yielded different results. These findings do not invalidate GWAS on inbred lines for selection purposes, but mean that it may not be directly useful for hybrid breeding.

Citation: Galli G, Alves FC, Morosini JS, Fritsche-Neto R (2020) On the usefulness of parental lines GWAS for predicting low heritability traits in tropical maize hybrids. PLoS ONE 15(2): e0228724. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724

Editor: Mathilde Causse, INRA France, FRANCE

Received: October 17, 2019; Accepted: January 21, 2020; Published: February 7, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Galli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All files are available from the Mendeley database (DOI: 10.17632/tpcw383fkm.3, https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/tpcw383fkm/3).

Funding: This study was financed by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP). Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2017/25549-6, 2017/24327-0, and 2013/24135-2 Dr. Roberto Fritsche-Neto. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Marker Assisted Selection (MAS; [1]) is a commonly used technique in plant breeding. This methodology has been reported to be most effective for selecting genomic regions that account for a relevant amount of genotypic variation in a population, often identified by QTL mapping. However, many important traits such as grain yield, plant height, and nutrient use efficiency are genetically controlled by many genes, each one accounting for a small percentage of the selectable variation. Therefore, the inability to select for small-effect QTL is an important limitation of MAS [2,3]. In this sense, genomic prediction (GP; [4]), a whole-genome-based selection methodology, was proposed with the intent of capturing as much genetic variation as possible, regardless of QTL identification.

Over the last decades, a realm of GP methods have been suggested for predicting agronomically relevant traits [2]. Bayesian LASSO (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator; [5]), BayesA, BayesB [4], RKHS (Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces; [6]), and genomic BLUP [7] are examples of the most notorious. Additionally, further adaptations have been proposed to principal methods such as compressed BLUP, SUPER BLUP [8], and GP with higher-effect markers differentially modeled (e.g., as fixed effects; [3,9,10]).

Simulations and empirical studies have shown that the ability of GP to associate phenotypic patterns to genomic variations is intrinsically related to the genetic architecture of traits [4,11,12]. Hence, the aforementioned GP methods were idealized to match genetic architectures by adjusting a priori assumptions regarding the variance and effect of genomic markers. Then, it is inferable that studying the genetic control of traits, in addition to be a crucial breeding practice, may lead to insights regarding the idealization and employment of GP methods.

One of the most popular methods of studying the genetic control is by genome-wide association studies (GWAS). GWAS has been extensively applied to maize populations for important agronomical traits such as foliar architecture [13], seed oil concentration and composition [14], resistance to diseases [15,16], root development [17], nitrogen use related traits [18], and plant height [19]. These studies showed that the methodology is efficient at finding candidate genes from which desirable allelic variants can be selected by breeders [20].

The concept of GWAS is centered at the possibility of using a wide range of populations, with few restrictions regarding the genetic structure of genotypes being utilized. In maize, some GWAS are reported in non-inbred populations (e.g., testcrosses; [21]), but most are carried out on (nearly) inbred genotypes (e.g., inbred association panels; [20]). These studies have shed light on the genetic control of many traits and are available for breeders to use [9]. However, GWAS of lines is only relevant in an cross-pollination breeding sense if important to the development of hybrids.

Hence, markers identified by GWAS can be utilized for MAS or in a MAS + GP combination. Thus, efforts have been employed in the use of GWAS-found markers for whole genomic prediction of the same [10] and different populations (GWAS in population A and prediction of population B; [9]). This approach is efficient in some situations, often increasing prediction ability [9,10]. However, there are still no reports on this methodology in such a way that would fit the conventional maize pipeline, that is, GWAS based on lines performance, but the prediction of hybrids. Furthermore, how relevant are the marker effects estimated when only additive effects are present in a scenario where dominance plays an essential role? This lacking information raises questions on the relevance of parental lines GWAS for hybrid breeding. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficiency of MAS or MAS+GP in a setup focused on maize hybrid breeding, where the GWAS is carried out in inbreed lines, and its results (markers with significant effects) are differentially accommodate in GP models.

Material and methods

Phenotype assessment and analysis

To verify the usefulness of inbred line GWAS in hybrid maize breeding, we selected the case study of Low Nitrogen Tolerance Index (LNTI), a critical, lowly heritable trait. Inbred line GWAS on this trait has been reported by Morosini et al. [18]. The genetic material was composed of 906 maize single-crosses [22] obtained in a partial diallel using 49 of the 64 inbred lines studied in Morosini et al. [18] (S1 Table). The 49 inbred lines were selected based on their nitrogen use efficiency [23] and identified as belonging from two heterotic groups, 35 flint and 15 dent [24]. Thorough study of the population of hybrids was previously reported [24,25].

Field trials were carried out in two nitrogen (N) regimes [ideal N (IN; 100 kg ha^-1) and low N (LN; 30 kg ha^-1)], at two sites [Piracicaba-São Paulo (22°42'23"S, 47°38'14"W, 535 m) and Anhembi-São Paulo (22°50'51"S, 48°01'06"W, 466 m)], during two years (second growing seasons of 2016 and 2017). The single-crosses (738 in 2016 and 789 in 2017) were phenotyped for grain yield (GY; Mg ha^-1) which was estimated based on the plot production (7 m row) corrected for 13% moisture. Treatments were arranged in augmented block schemes (unreplicated trials). Each incomplete block was composed of 16 regular treatments and two checks.

A joint model was fit having year, site, nitrogen regime (and interactions) for factor effect significance by Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT; random) and Wald Statistics (fixed). Once evidence of the significance of N application was found, further analyses were performed for each nitrogen level. The adjusted means of single-crosses were estimated for low (GY_LN) and standard (GY_IN) N conditions according to the following linear mixed model using ASReml-R [26]: where y is the yield of each plot; X is the incidence matrix for check, hybrid, environment (combinations of site and year), and check × environment regarded as fixed with effect β; the random effect of block-within-environment is represented by b with incidence V; ε is a vector of residuals based on checks. The adjusted means for GY_LN and GY_IN were used to estimate the LNTI of the single-cross i by [27].

In a second step, this model was fit considering hybrid, environment, and check × environment as random effects for the estimation of the heritabilities at plot and entry mean level for both N regimes using where , and are the genotypic (hybrids), genotypic (checks) × environment, and residual variances, respectively. Variances were weighted by the number of environments (a = 4) and replications (r = 1).

Genomic data

The forty-nine inbred lines were genotyped with the Affymetrix^® Axiom^® Array of 614k SNPs [28]. Quality control procedure was applied with: (1) removal of low (<95%) call rate markers; (2) elimination of loci with at least one heterozygote; (3) imputation of the missing data considering only homozygous combinations using the Synbreed-R package [29]; (4) prune of markers so the mean linkage disequilibrium (LD) is 0.9 using Plink v. 1.9 algorithms [30]; (5) build of the artificial single-crosses genomic matrix combining the genotype of the parents in silico; (6) exclusion of markers when the minor allele frequency was lower than 5%. Thus, a total of 34,571 markers were kept for subsequent analyses.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Admixture Clustering revealed the existence of two subpopulations in the inbred lines germplasm [18,31]. Additionally, according to Morosini et al. [18], the panel presents a mean length of LD decay of 80–100 kb (r² = 0.13). Since no Mendelian sampling occurred from parental lines to single-crosses for the markers considered (homozygous only), the LD decay should remain similar on the offspring. No clear structuration of the population of hybrids was identified through PCA analysis [24]. The distribution of minor allele frequency and heterozygosity on hybrids is reported (S1 Fig). Also, over 99% of markers on hybrids were in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. Additional information on the inbred lines and hybrid population can be found on [24,25].

Genomic prediction

The genomic matrix (Z) was split into two matrices. The markers identified as significant on the parental population for LNTI by Morosini et al. [18] (S2 Table) were allocated in matrix M, and the non-significant markers were allocated in matrix W.

The predictive ability of the methods was obtained using the training-testing validation scheme with 50 replications. The training population was composed of 75% of the hybrids, randomly assigned. The marker-based model training for prediction of LNTI of the maize hybrids was performed using additive MAS (MAS(A)), dominance MAS (MAS(D)), additive + dominance MAS (MAS(AD)), BayesB, GBLUP, MAS|GBLUP, RKHS, and MAS|RKHS. The MAS|GBLUP, and MAS|RKHS methods are modifications from the original methods to accommodate significant markers identified in GWAS as fixed effects. The methods were applied following the models [1], [4], [6,7]: where is the vector of adjusted phenotypic values of hybrids; X is the incidence matrix for the mean μ; M is genotype matrix of significant markers with effect f regarded as fixed; Z is the whole genomic matrix associated to b; T is the design matrix for hybrids relating the genetic values h or s to the dependent variable. In BayesB, the distribution of the independent vectors was assumed as where π is the parameter with Beta distribution indicating the proportion of markers with null variance; h~NID(0,G_Z); s~NID(0,G_W); The additive relationship matrices were estimated as using all markers and using only non-significant markers. The Gaussian Kernel is derived from the additive GRMs as in [25]. Models were implemented in the BGLR library [32] of R. MCMC sampling was performed 30,000 times with the elimination of the first 5,000 and thinning of 5. Hyperparameters were applied as presented by Pérez and De Los Campos [28].

The GEBVs of the test population of hybrids (25%) were predicted by for MAS; for BayesB; for GBLUP and RKHS; and by for MAS|GBLUP and MAS|RKHS. The training-testing procedure was performed 50 times and the mean Pearson’s product-moment correlations of and GEBV across all iterations represented the predictive ability of the method.

GWAS

For further comparisons, GWAS was performed on the hybrids, including a dominance effect, considering the single-marker regression following the model: where is the vector of adjusted LNTI, GY_LN, or GY_LN values of hybrids; X is the incidence matrix for which is the vector of fixed effects including mean and population structure (PCA); Number of principal components varied from 0 to 3 and only the ones that led to the best fit were utilized. S is the additive (aa = -1, Aa = 0 or AA = 1; S_A), dominance (aa = 0, Aa = 1 or AA = 0; S_D) or addivive + dominance (S_AS_D) genomic incidence matrix associated to fixed marker effect m; T is the incidence matrix of hybrids related to the vector of polygenic genetic effects with and/or , where and where p and q are the allelic frequencies for the j^th marker (j = 1…m) as in [33]; ε refers to the vector of residuals having . The p-values of the markers were tested against a threshold estimated by permutation with 400 repetitions to determine significance. The association analyses were performed using the adapted functions of the Sommer package in R [33]. Additionally, the heritability of significant markers was estimated as for the additive GWAS; for the additive + dominance GWAS, was used for the additive and for the dominance effect; where p and q are the allelic frequencies and α is the allelic substitution effect (ASE), a is the additive effect and d is the dominance deviation of the significant SNP. The regression coefficient obtained by the GWAS regression depends on the type of the modeled effects, and conclusions should be drawn accordingly.

Results

Phenotypic analysis

The joint phenotypic analysis of GY revealed significant effects of environment, block within environment, check × environment interaction, and hybrid by LRT test (P<0.05). Additionally, the heritability was 0.25 at plot and 0.57 at entry-mean levels. Under the statistical evidence of nitrogen application effect on yield, the phenotypic analysis was performed in each regime. The heritabilities at the plot level were 0.25 and 0.19 for trials under low and normal nitrogen conditions, respectively. At the entry mean level, it was 0.55 for LN and 0.49 for IN. The adjusted GY values under LN ranged from 3.23 to 8.54 Mg ha⁻¹, with mean 6.50 Mg ha⁻¹. Under IN the means were higher, varying from 4.24 Mg ha⁻¹ to 9.62 Mg ha⁻¹, averaging 7.37 Mg ha⁻¹. The LNTI, estimated from the mentioned GY means, ranged from -14.54 to 30.78% with mean 11.65% (S2 Fig). Two genotypes were removed based on the LNTI values.

MAS and genomic prediction

Low magnitude differences between methods regarding genetic and residual variances were found (S3 Table). Nonetheless, RKHS presented the highest genotypic variance values, while GBLUP presented the lowest (for kinship/genetic distance-based methods). The residual variance was greater when GBLUP or MAS|GBLUP was utilized and lowest for RKHS. In addition, it is clear that when GP and MAS are combined, genetic/genotypic variation decreases. Conversely, the residual variance did not present a specific performance pattern regarding the combination of methodologies. MAS had no genetic variance as residual was the only random component. Furthermore, all presented the same residual variance, which was higher than the genome-wide based methods.

Low prediction ability (PA) values for LNTI were found (Fig 1). Values ranged from 0.093 to 0.107 under GP methods, obtained using MAS|RKHS and BayesB, respectively. From the MAS methods, MAS(D) presented the higher PA (0.013), while MAS(A) yielded the lowest (-0.019). Regardless of the model, PAs of MAS(D) and MAS(AD) were not significantly divergent from zero by t-test. Furthermore, the results indicate that integrating GP and MAS (MAS|GBLUP and MAS|RKHS) under the studied scenario did not lead to any prediction improvements.

Download:

Fig 1. Predictive ability of LNTI in maize single-crosses using BayesB, RKHS, MAS|RKHS, GBLUP, MAS|GBLUP, additive MAS, dominance MAS, and additive + dominance MAS.

The MAS is based on four markers identified as significantly associated with the trait in the parental inbred lines by Morosini et al. [18]. Values inside the boxes are mean correlations across 50 replicates. Red font indicates that the mean is not statistically different from zero by t-test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.g001

Genome-wide association analysis based on hybrids performance

GWAS was carried out under a series of model setups regarding the control of polygenic effects using different relationship matrices (G_A, G_D or G_AD) and the number of principal components for controlling population structure (0, 1, 2, and 3). Using a single principal component led to the best adjustments, and only analyses with the best QQ plots were reported (Fig 2). Eight marker-trait associations were found for LNTI for the additive and dominance effects. One of the markers was significant for both additive and dominance effects, totalizing then seven exclusive markers (Table 1). Chromosomes 1 and 7 had two significant markers, and 2, 3, and 9 had one. However, the two markers identified at chromosome 7 are fairly close (LD of 0.83) and probably tracking the same genomic variant.

Download:

Fig 2. Manhattan and QQ-plots of GWAS for low nitrogen tolerance index (LNTI) of 904 maize single-crosses using 34,571 markers.

Plots represent additive effect with model S_A+G_A (top); S_AD+G_A (middle); and dominance with model S_AD+G_D (bottom). Significant markers identified in the inbred lines by Morosini et al. [18] are represented by red triangles in the Manhattan plot.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.g002

Download:

Table 1. List of markers significantly associated with LNTI, GYLN, and GYIN by GWAS of 904 hybrids with 34,571 markers with chromosome (Chr), position (in base pairs), minor allele frequency (MAF), type of effect tested, value of the marker regression coefficient (β), marker effect heritability (H²), gene identification (Gene ID), distance between gene and marker, and annotation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.t001

The comparison of physical locations of significant markers by GWAS with the B73 reference genome allowed the identification of several candidate genes. Putative genes were found on chromosome 1 (phot2—blue-light receptor phototropin 2; putative wall-associated receptor kinase-like 16), 2 (Protein kinase-like domain; maternal effect embryo arrest 60), 3 (DUF1639 family protein; ipt3B - isopentenyl transferase3B adenylate isopentenyltransferase), 7 (putative carboxylesterase 15; cold-regulated 413 plasma membrane protein 1-like 14-3-3-like protein GF14 nu; probable carboxylesterase 15), and 9 (Heat shock protein 70 family luminal-binding protein 3-like; Lung seven transmembrane receptor family protein).

Additionally, GWAS for GY_LN and GY_IN were also reported (Figs 3 and 4B) using the same model criteria as for LNTI (best QQ plot). Three associations were found with GY, being two with ideal N and one with low N. The marker identified on both regimes was located on the chromosome 3 and was of additive effect. The marker identified solely under standard N is on chromosome 5 and was found with the dominance model. When compared to the reference genome, this SNP had four putative genes on its range (Subtilisin-like protease SBT2.6; Pentatricopeptide repeat-containing; DUF4228 domain protein; Core-2/I-branching beta-16-Nacetylglucosaminyltransferase family protein). However, for the marker identified for both GY_LN and GY_IN on chromosome 3, no trace was found to any gene.

Download:

Fig 3.

Manhattan and QQ-plots of GWAS for GY_LN (Top) and GY_IN (middle and bottom). Plots represent additive effect with model S_AD+G_AD (top and middle); and dominance effect with model S_D+G_AD (bottom). Analyses were carried out on 904 maize single-crosses using 34,571 markers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.g003

Download:

Fig 4.

A) Boxplot of LNTI adjusted means (%) by genotypic classes for significant markers. Affx.90980373 was significant for both additive and dominance effects. Affx.91242936 was significant for dominance effect. All other markers were significant for the additive effect; B) Boxplot of GY_LN (left) and GY_IN (right) adjusted means (Mg ha^-1) by genotypic classes for significant markers. Affx.91283875 was significant for dominance effect. Affx.90227892 was significant for additive effect.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.g004

Absolute values of regression coefficient ranged from 1.6 to 11.38 for LNTI. For GY, values were from 0.69 to 1.69. The heritability of the markers (H²) varied from 0.0017 to 0.0645 for LNTI and from 0.0018 to 0.0099 for GY. It is essential to notice that some regression coefficients could be overestimated.

Discussion

On the combination of MAS and GP

Bernardo [3] introduced the concept of combining MAS and GP. Ever since, reports have validated the methodology [9–11]. Our results showed no advantage in combining MAS and GP for predicting LNTI, a low-heritability highly polygenic trait [18], of tropical maize hybrids. That corroborates the findings of Bernardo [3], Li et al. [34], and Spindel et al. [10], which suggest that differentially modeling significant markers improve prediction performance only when the trait is highly heritable and the markers explain a fair proportion of the genetic variance. In our case, none of these prerequisites were met. Additionally, modeling major markers as fixed may create a confounding effect between genetic fixed and random terms which is dealt with when all markers are random. Regarding the prediction method, no much difference was found between the GP and MAS + GP methods, meaning that the more straightforward method (namely GBLUP) can be utilized with no predictive ability loss. Additionally, the inferior (and non-statistically divergent to zero) predictive ability of MAS makes it a poor candidate method for prediction.

Our results suggest that there is no advantage in modeling markers identified in parental lines as fixed effects for the prediction of hybrids in both MAS and MAS + GP scenarios. It might be due to the lack of connection between the genotype-phenotype relationship of parental inbred lines and hybrids given the changes in the allele substitution effect. Allele substitution effect (α) of a given gene depends on the allele frequencies (p and q) and genotypic values (a and d), since α = a+d(q−p) [35]. Despite being derived from a partial diallel, marker allelic frequencies of parental lines and hybrids were fairly similar (S2 Table). Regarding genotypic values, α of any marker in inbred lines would be represented by α = a, since d = 0. On the other hand, the phenotype of hybrids is believed to be consistently driven by dominance effects (high d) due to the expression of high-level heterosis in the species.

After all, predicting traits based on information extracted from the parental inbred lines per se information has been reported not to be effective for polygenic traits due to the masking of non-additive effects and genotype by environment interactions [36–38]. By applying MAS with the markers identified by Morosini et al. [18], our results showed that the covariance between the hybrids genetic values predicted from marker effects estimated from parental lines and hybrids was negative (S3 Fig). This reinforces the inability to predict performance of hybrids based on parental information. Besides, the significant markers identified in hybrids and parental lines were not the same (Fig 2; [18]). That means that not only the difference in nature of effects (additive and dominance), but also genomic regulation toward potentially distinct regions/loci (genes expressed in heterozygous forms) are relevant for the differential establishment of lines and hybrids phenotypes. Hence, in a prediction-based breeding context, the results suggest that parental lines-based GWAS might not be meaningful for hybrid breeding for such traits as LNTI.

Although there is strong evidence that carrying out GWAS on hybrids seems a better fit in a breeding context, some factors may hamper the direct use of GWAS in the conventional pipeline. First, it conceptually requires diverse germplasm for maximizing the quality of results. It might not be achieved in breeding populations, which commonly fixed for the majority of favorable alleles (elite germplasm). In Fig 4, the genotypes are ordered by frequency, indicating that for the significant markers, favorable alleles were in higher frequency. Secondly, finding functional associations that can be used to implement genetic gain is sometimes occasional due to the genetic architecture of the trait. These factors should be taken into account by the breeder in the decision-making process.

Simulations have shown which scenarios are favorable for utilizing GWAS-significant markers/major genes in GP [3,11]. Our work aggregates new insights as putative QTL are identified in parents (inbred lines) and GP is applied to hybrids. The results showed no advantage when combining GWAS, and GP in this framework. Nevertheless, further studies on traits with different genetics architecture are still to be carried out.

Additive + dominance GWAS of maize hybrids

Modeling dominance effect in GP of maize hybrids is a recurrent practice that generally yields favorable results [25,39]. However, GWAS have been mostly limited to the identification of allelic substitution effects, even when non-inbred populations were evaluated [21]. Some reports on human [40], beef-cattle [41], sunflower [42], and pig populations [43] revealed the ability of additive-dominance-based GWAS to identify functional polymorphisms and lead to promising candidate genes. In the current study, RKHS, a non-linear GP method, did not outperform the additive-based models. Nevertheless, two out of seven significant markers identified for LNTI were based on the dominance parametrization. For GY, under standard nitrogen regime, one out of two was based on dominance. This evidence manifests the importance of assessing non-additive effects for finding functional polymorphisms in hybrids.

GWAS suggested eleven significant marker-trait associations, eight for LNTI and three for GY under two N fertilization regimes. The annotations revealed that seven out of nine markers were flanked by putative genes. However, some associations presented unrealistic (overestimated) regression coefficients (β; allele substitution effects/additive effect/dominance deviations). These markers had in common a low MAF (<0.10), which might be leading to these results as well as other factors such as the Beavis effect [44]. Relating effect and genotype frequencies for LNTI, four markers (Affx.90980373, Affx.90589560, Affx.90263516, Affx.91242936) presented a complete dominance-like behavior (Fig 4A). However, only two of those were found significant in the dominance GWAS (Affx.90980373 and Affx.91242936). This pattern seems to be generated by chance in the set of low MAF markers. For GY, one marker was significant in the dominance GWAS (Affx.91283875), but all markers presented the dominance-like pattern, which is also probably driven by their low MAF. However, these aspects do not invalidate the findings but suggest that the use of this information should be done with further attention.

The markers with MAF>0.10, Affx.91015157 and Affx.90918032 (or Affx.90609217), presented the lowest regression coefficients for LNTI, which are consistent with the expected genetic architecture of the trait. Additionally, H² values were relatively low for all markers which is in accordance with the low heritability of LNTI (~0.13 for inbred lines, [18]). This suggests that, even when carried out in hybrids, GWAS findings might be of limited use for selection purposes. Nevertheless, results showed associations to other markers than those from parental lines (Fig 2; [18]).

The putative genes found in the inbred lines were associated with transcription regulation, DNA repair, lipid biosynthesis, and GMP Synthetase. There was no direct correspondence among the putative genes found in hybrids compared to the ones identified in the lines panel [18]. Nevertheless, the physiological implications of the nitrogen are hardly straightly connected to specific genes or functions, given their complex nature. GY under different N regimes and the LNTI are useful tools to assess the N use efficiency (NUE), an important aspect and also a complex trait for maize breeding. In this context, indirect inferences on the role of N are useful towards a better understanding of its genetic architecture.

Regarding the GWAS in maize hybrids, the putative genes are mostly related to the expression of chloroplast genes; cell elongation and plant development; catalytic function of protein kinases, which operates as an on/off switch for many cellular processes, including physiological ones; cellular response to heat, and cytokinin biosynthesis. Therefore, due to the traits evaluated, all these processes are very likely related to the amount of nitrogen available to the plant.

Implications on cross-pollination breeding for low heritability traits

The GWAS results suggest the presence of both additive and dominance effects controlling LNTI in maize hybrids (Table 1). The breeding scheme for this type of variety is based on heterotic groups combined by diallel mattings and/or testers. In this sense, if the associations are considered of value (e.g., high ASE or H²), LNTI can be improved by increasing the frequency of favorable alleles of additive genes in all groups or; increasing the frequency of each allele in the respective groups for genes expressing dominance effects. Morosini et al. [18] reported that that many genes of small effect control LNTI. We added to this finding further functional polymorphisms that control the trait (Fig 2, Table 1). The aspects of genetic architecture, the high number of alleles, and low heritability [18,31] make it hard to predict and select superior genotypes.

After all, the purpose of this work is not convincing that GWAS should only be performed in hybrids. Regardless, our results show that, under situations similar to the one here exposed, GWAS performed in hybrids and lines lead to contrasting results, meaning that inbred-line GWAS might not be directly used for breeding. Nevertheless, it is still relevant as a tool for understanding the physiological base of traits and should not be neglected.

Supporting information

S1 Fig.

The distribution of minor allele frequency (left) and heterozygosity (right) on the utilized population of maize hybrids.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Fig.

Density plot of grain yield under two nitrogen application regimes (top) and low nitrogen tolerance index (LNTI) of 904 maize hybrids (bottom).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Variances and covariances of MAS predicted values with four markers identified as significantly associated with low nitrogen tolerance index (LNTI) in maize lines by Morosini et al. (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.s003

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Number of times each line was used as genitor for obtaining the 904 hybrids analyzed.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.s004

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Attributes of four markers on 64 inbred lines and 904 single-crosses (offspring).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.s005

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Genetic () and residual () variances from genomic prediction validation of LNTI in maize single-crosses using BayesB, RKHS, MASS|RKHS, GBLUP, MAS|GBLUP, additive MAS (MAS(A)), dominance MAS (MAS(D)) and additive + dominance MAS (MASS(AD)).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228724.s006

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The Allogamous Plant Breeding Laboratory team (Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Brazil) thanks Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)—(processes 2017/25549-6, 2017/24327-0, and 2013/24135-2), for the financial support.

References

1. Lande R, Thompson R. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics. 1990;124: 743–756. pmid:1968875
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Hayes B, Goddard M. Genome-wide association and genomic selection in animal breeding. Genome. 2010;53: 876–83. pmid:21076503
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Bernardo R. Genomewide selection when major genes are known. Crop Sci. 2014;54: 68–75.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of Total Genetic Value Using Genome-Wide Dense Marker Maps. Genetics. 2001;157: 1819–1829. pmid:11290733
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Park T, Casella G. The Bayesian Lasso. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008;103: 681–686.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. de Los Campos G, Gianola D, Rosa GJ. Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces regression: a general framework for genetic evaluation. J Anim Sci. 2009. pmid:19213705
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
7. VanRaden PM. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91: 4414–23. pmid:18946147
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Wang J, Zhou Z, Zhang Z, Li H, Liu D, Zhang Q, et al. Expanding the BLUP alphabet for genomic prediction adaptable to the genetic architectures of complex traits. Heredity (Edinb). 2018;121: 648–662. pmid:29765161
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Zhang Z, Ober U, Erbe M, Zhang H, Gao N, He J, et al. Improving the accuracy of whole genome prediction for complex traits using the results of genome wide association studies. PLoS One. 2014;9: e93017. pmid:24663104
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Spindel JE, Begum H, Akdemir D, Collard B, Redoña E, Jannink J-L, et al. Genome-wide prediction models that incorporate de novo GWAS are a powerful new tool for tropical rice improvement. Heredity (Edinb). 2016;116: 395–408. pmid:26860200
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Rice B, Lipka AE. Evaluation of RR-BLUP Genomic Selection Models that Incorporate Peak Genome-Wide Association Study Signals in Maize and Sorghum. Plant Genome. 2019;12: 0. pmid:30951091
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Bernardo R. Molecular markers and selection for complex traits in plants: Learning from the last 20 years. Crop Sci. 2008;48: 1649–1664.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Tian F, Bradbury PJ, Brown PJ, Hung H, Sun Q, Flint-Garcia S, et al. Genome-wide association study of leaf architecture in the maize nested association mapping population. Nat Genet. 2011;43: 159–162. pmid:21217756
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Li H, Peng Z, Yang X, Wang W, Fu J, Wang J, et al. Genome-wide association study dissects the genetic architecture of oil biosynthesis in maize kernels. Nat Genet. 2013;45: 43–50. pmid:23242369
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Mammadov J, Sun X, Gao Y, Ochsenfeld C, Bakker E, Ren R, et al. Combining powers of linkage and association mapping for precise dissection of QTL controlling resistance to gray leaf spot disease in maize (Zea mays L.). BMC Genomics. 2015;16: 916. pmid:26555731
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Gowda M, Das B, Makumbi D, Babu R, Semagn K, Mahuku G, et al. Genome-wide association and genomic prediction of resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease in tropical maize germplasm. Theor Appl Genet. 2015;128: 1957–68. pmid:26152570
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Pace J, Gardner C, Romay C, Ganapathysubramanian B, Lübberstedt T. Genome-wide association analysis of seedling root development in maize (Zea mays L.). BMC Genomics. 2015;16: 47. pmid:25652714
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Morosini JS, Mendonça L de F, Lyra DH, Galli G, Vidotti MS, Fritsche-Neto R. Association mapping for traits related to nitrogen use efficiency in tropical maize lines under field conditions. Plant Soil. 2017;421: 453–463.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Peiffer JA, Romay MC, Gore MA, Flint-Garcia SA, Zhang Z, Millard MJ, et al. The genetic architecture of maize height. Genetics. 2014;196: 1337–56. pmid:24514905
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Xiao Y, Liu H, Wu L, Warburton M, Yan J. Genome-wide Association Studies in Maize: Praise and Stargaze. Mol Plant. 2017;10: 359–374. pmid:28039028
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Farfan IDB, De La Fuente GN, Murray SC, Isakeit T, Huang PC, Warburton M, et al. Genome wide association study for drought, aflatoxin resistance, and important agronomic traits of maize hybrids in the sub-tropics. PLoS One. 2015;10: 1–30. pmid:25714370
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Fritsche-Neto R, Galli G, Mendonça L de F, Vidotti MS, Matias FI, Couto EG de O, et al. USP tropical maize hybrid panel. Mendeley Data. 2019;3.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Mendonça L de F, Granato ÍSC, Alves FC, Morais PPP, Vidotti MS, Fritsche-Neto R. Accuracy and simultaneous selection gains for N-stress tolerance and N-use efficiency in maize tropical lines. Sci Agric. 2017;74: 481–488.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Fritsche-Neto R, Akdemir D, Jannink J-L. Accuracy of genomic selection to predict maize single-crosses obtained through different mating designs. Theor Appl Genet. 2018;131: 1153–1162. pmid:29445844
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. 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: 14. pmid:30774704
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R. ASReml user guide release 3.0. Hemel Hempstead: VSN International; 2009. Available: citeulike-article-id:10128936
27. Miti F, Tongoona P, Derera J. S1 selection of local maize landraces for low soil nitrogen tolerance in Zambia. 2004;4: 67–81.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Unterseer S, Bauer E, Haberer G, Seidel M, Knaak C, Ouzunova M, et al. A powerful tool for genome analysis in maize: development and evaluation of the high density 600 k SNP genotyping array. BMC Genomics. 2014;15: 823. pmid:25266061
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Wimmer V, Albrecht T, Auinger H-J, Schon C-C. Synbreed: a framework for the analysis of genomic prediction data using R. Bioinformatics. 2012;28: 2086–2087. pmid:22689388
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LC, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience. 2015;4: 7. pmid:25722852
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Lyra DH, de Freitas Mendonça L, Galli G, Alves FC, Granato ÍSC, Fritsche-Neto R. Multi-trait genomic prediction for nitrogen response indices in tropical maize hybrids. Mol Breed. 2017;37: 80.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Pérez P, De Los Campos G. Genome-wide regression and prediction with the BGLR statistical package. Genetics. 2014;198: 483–495. pmid:25009151
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
33. Covarrubias-Pazaran G. Genome-Assisted prediction of quantitative traits using the r package sommer. PLoS One. 2016;11: 1–15. pmid:27271781
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
34. Li H, Wang J, Bao Z. A novel genomic selection method combining GBLUP and LASSO. Genetica. 2015;143: 299–304. pmid:25655266
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Bernardo R. Breeding for Quantitative Traits in Plants. Woobury: Stemma Press; 2010.
36. Schrag TA, Frisch M, Dhillon BS, Melchinger AE. Marker-based prediction of hybrid performance in maize single-crosses involving doubled haploids. Maydica. 2009;54: 353–362.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Bernardo R. Correlation between testcross performance of lines at early and late selfing generations. Theor Appl Genet. 1991. pmid:24212855
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Smith OS. Covariance between Line per se and Testcross Performance1. Crop Sci. 1986;26: 540.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Technow F, Riedelsheimer C, Schrag TA, Melchinger AE. Genomic prediction of hybrid performance in maize with models incorporating dominance and population specific marker effects. Theor Appl Genet. 2012;125: 1181–1194. pmid:22733443
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Monir MM, Zhu J. Comparing GWAS Results of Complex Traits Using Full Genetic Model and Additive Models for Revealing Genetic Architecture. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 1–12.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Akanno EC, Chen L, Abo-Ismail MK, Crowley JJ, Wang Z, Li C, et al. Genome-wide association scan for heterotic quantitative trait loci in multi-breed and crossbred beef cattle. Genet Sel Evol. 2018;50: 48. pmid:30290764
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Bonnafous F, Fievet G, Blanchet N, Boniface MC, Carrère S, Gouzy J, et al. Comparison of GWAS models to identify non-additive genetic control of flowering time in sunflower hybrids. Theor Appl Genet. 2018;131: 319–332. pmid:29098310
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Lopes MS, Bastiaansen JWM, Harlizius B, Knol EF, Bovenhuis H. A genome-wide association study reveals dominance effects on number of teats in pigs. PLoS One. 2014;9: 1–8. pmid:25158056
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Xu S. Theoretical Basis of the Beavis Effect. Genetics. 2003;165: 2259–2268. pmid:14704201
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Lande R, Thompson R. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics. 1990;124: 743–756. pmid:1968875
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Hayes B, Goddard M. Genome-wide association and genomic selection in animal breeding. Genome. 2010;53: 876–83. pmid:21076503
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Bernardo R. Genomewide selection when major genes are known. Crop Sci. 2014;54: 68–75.
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of Total Genetic Value Using Genome-Wide Dense Marker Maps. Genetics. 2001;157: 1819–1829. pmid:11290733
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] PubMed/NCBI

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Park T, Casella G. The Bayesian Lasso. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008;103: 681–686.
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. de Los Campos G, Gianola D, Rosa GJ. Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces regression: a general framework for genetic evaluation. J Anim Sci. 2009. pmid:19213705
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] PubMed/NCBI

[22] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. VanRaden PM. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91: 4414–23. pmid:18946147
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] PubMed/NCBI

[26] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Wang J, Zhou Z, Zhang Z, Li H, Liu D, Zhang Q, et al. Expanding the BLUP alphabet for genomic prediction adaptable to the genetic architectures of complex traits. Heredity (Edinb). 2018;121: 648–662. pmid:29765161
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Zhang Z, Ober U, Erbe M, Zhang H, Gao N, He J, et al. Improving the accuracy of whole genome prediction for complex traits using the results of genome wide association studies. PLoS One. 2014;9: e93017. pmid:24663104
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] PubMed/NCBI

[34] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Spindel JE, Begum H, Akdemir D, Collard B, Redoña E, Jannink J-L, et al. Genome-wide prediction models that incorporate de novo GWAS are a powerful new tool for tropical rice improvement. Heredity (Edinb). 2016;116: 395–408. pmid:26860200
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] PubMed/NCBI

[38] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Rice B, Lipka AE. Evaluation of RR-BLUP Genomic Selection Models that Incorporate Peak Genome-Wide Association Study Signals in Maize and Sorghum. Plant Genome. 2019;12: 0. pmid:30951091
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] PubMed/NCBI

[42] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Bernardo R. Molecular markers and selection for complex traits in plants: Learning from the last 20 years. Crop Sci. 2008;48: 1649–1664.
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Tian F, Bradbury PJ, Brown PJ, Hung H, Sun Q, Flint-Garcia S, et al. Genome-wide association study of leaf architecture in the maize nested association mapping population. Nat Genet. 2011;43: 159–162. pmid:21217756
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Li H, Peng Z, Yang X, Wang W, Fu J, Wang J, et al. Genome-wide association study dissects the genetic architecture of oil biosynthesis in maize kernels. Nat Genet. 2013;45: 43–50. pmid:23242369
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Mammadov J, Sun X, Gao Y, Ochsenfeld C, Bakker E, Ren R, et al. Combining powers of linkage and association mapping for precise dissection of QTL controlling resistance to gray leaf spot disease in maize (Zea mays L.). BMC Genomics. 2015;16: 916. pmid:26555731
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Gowda M, Das B, Makumbi D, Babu R, Semagn K, Mahuku G, et al. Genome-wide association and genomic prediction of resistance to maize lethal necrosis disease in tropical maize germplasm. Theor Appl Genet. 2015;128: 1957–68. pmid:26152570
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Pace J, Gardner C, Romay C, Ganapathysubramanian B, Lübberstedt T. Genome-wide association analysis of seedling root development in maize (Zea mays L.). BMC Genomics. 2015;16: 47. pmid:25652714
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] PubMed/NCBI

[65] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Morosini JS, Mendonça L de F, Lyra DH, Galli G, Vidotti MS, Fritsche-Neto R. Association mapping for traits related to nitrogen use efficiency in tropical maize lines under field conditions. Plant Soil. 2017;421: 453–463.
View Article
Google Scholar

[67] View Article

[68] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Peiffer JA, Romay MC, Gore MA, Flint-Garcia SA, Zhang Z, Millard MJ, et al. The genetic architecture of maize height. Genetics. 2014;196: 1337–56. pmid:24514905
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] PubMed/NCBI

[72] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Xiao Y, Liu H, Wu L, Warburton M, Yan J. Genome-wide Association Studies in Maize: Praise and Stargaze. Mol Plant. 2017;10: 359–374. pmid:28039028
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[74] View Article

[75] PubMed/NCBI

[76] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Farfan IDB, De La Fuente GN, Murray SC, Isakeit T, Huang PC, Warburton M, et al. Genome wide association study for drought, aflatoxin resistance, and important agronomic traits of maize hybrids in the sub-tropics. PLoS One. 2015;10: 1–30. pmid:25714370
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[78] View Article

[79] PubMed/NCBI

[80] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Fritsche-Neto R, Galli G, Mendonça L de F, Vidotti MS, Matias FI, Couto EG de O, et al. USP tropical maize hybrid panel. Mendeley Data. 2019;3.
View Article
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Mendonça L de F, Granato ÍSC, Alves FC, Morais PPP, Vidotti MS, Fritsche-Neto R. Accuracy and simultaneous selection gains for N-stress tolerance and N-use efficiency in maize tropical lines. Sci Agric. 2017;74: 481–488.
View Article
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Fritsche-Neto R, Akdemir D, Jannink J-L. Accuracy of genomic selection to predict maize single-crosses obtained through different mating designs. Theor Appl Genet. 2018;131: 1153–1162. pmid:29445844
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] PubMed/NCBI

[90] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. 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: 14. pmid:30774704
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] PubMed/NCBI

[94] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R. ASReml user guide release 3.0. Hemel Hempstead: VSN International; 2009. Available: citeulike-article-id:10128936

[ref27] 27. Miti F, Tongoona P, Derera J. S1 selection of local maize landraces for low soil nitrogen tolerance in Zambia. 2004;4: 67–81.
View Article
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Unterseer S, Bauer E, Haberer G, Seidel M, Knaak C, Ouzunova M, et al. A powerful tool for genome analysis in maize: development and evaluation of the high density 600 k SNP genotyping array. BMC Genomics. 2014;15: 823. pmid:25266061
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[100] View Article

[101] PubMed/NCBI

[102] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Wimmer V, Albrecht T, Auinger H-J, Schon C-C. Synbreed: a framework for the analysis of genomic prediction data using R. Bioinformatics. 2012;28: 2086–2087. pmid:22689388
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LC, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience. 2015;4: 7. pmid:25722852
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] PubMed/NCBI

[110] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Lyra DH, de Freitas Mendonça L, Galli G, Alves FC, Granato ÍSC, Fritsche-Neto R. Multi-trait genomic prediction for nitrogen response indices in tropical maize hybrids. Mol Breed. 2017;37: 80.
View Article
Google Scholar

[112] View Article

[113] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Pérez P, De Los Campos G. Genome-wide regression and prediction with the BGLR statistical package. Genetics. 2014;198: 483–495. pmid:25009151
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[115] View Article

[116] PubMed/NCBI

[117] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Covarrubias-Pazaran G. Genome-Assisted prediction of quantitative traits using the r package sommer. PLoS One. 2016;11: 1–15. pmid:27271781
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] PubMed/NCBI

[121] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Li H, Wang J, Bao Z. A novel genomic selection method combining GBLUP and LASSO. Genetica. 2015;143: 299–304. pmid:25655266
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Bernardo R. Breeding for Quantitative Traits in Plants. Woobury: Stemma Press; 2010.

[ref36] 36. Schrag TA, Frisch M, Dhillon BS, Melchinger AE. Marker-based prediction of hybrid performance in maize single-crosses involving doubled haploids. Maydica. 2009;54: 353–362.
View Article
Google Scholar

[128] View Article

[129] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Bernardo R. Correlation between testcross performance of lines at early and late selfing generations. Theor Appl Genet. 1991. pmid:24212855
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Smith OS. Covariance between Line per se and Testcross Performance1. Crop Sci. 1986;26: 540.
View Article
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Technow F, Riedelsheimer C, Schrag TA, Melchinger AE. Genomic prediction of hybrid performance in maize with models incorporating dominance and population specific marker effects. Theor Appl Genet. 2012;125: 1181–1194. pmid:22733443
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Monir MM, Zhu J. Comparing GWAS Results of Complex Traits Using Full Genetic Model and Additive Models for Revealing Genetic Architecture. Sci Rep. 2017;7: 1–12.
View Article
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Akanno EC, Chen L, Abo-Ismail MK, Crowley JJ, Wang Z, Li C, et al. Genome-wide association scan for heterotic quantitative trait loci in multi-breed and crossbred beef cattle. Genet Sel Evol. 2018;50: 48. pmid:30290764
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Bonnafous F, Fievet G, Blanchet N, Boniface MC, Carrère S, Gouzy J, et al. Comparison of GWAS models to identify non-additive genetic control of flowering time in sunflower hybrids. Theor Appl Genet. 2018;131: 319–332. pmid:29098310
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] PubMed/NCBI

[151] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Lopes MS, Bastiaansen JWM, Harlizius B, Knol EF, Bovenhuis H. A genome-wide association study reveals dominance effects on number of teats in pigs. PLoS One. 2014;9: 1–8. pmid:25158056
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[153] View Article

[154] PubMed/NCBI

[155] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Xu S. Theoretical Basis of the Beavis Effect. Genetics. 2003;165: 2259–2268. pmid:14704201
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[157] View Article

[158] PubMed/NCBI

[159] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Material and methods

Phenotype assessment and analysis

Genomic data

Genomic prediction

GWAS

Results

Phenotypic analysis

MAS and genomic prediction

Genome-wide association analysis based on hybrids performance

Discussion

On the combination of MAS and GP

Additive + dominance GWAS of maize hybrids

Implications on cross-pollination breeding for low heritability traits

Supporting information

S1 Fig.

S2 Fig.

S3 Fig. Variances and covariances of MAS predicted values with four markers identified as significantly associated with low nitrogen tolerance index (LNTI) in maize lines by Morosini et al. (2017).

S1 Table. Number of times each line was used as genitor for obtaining the 904 hybrids analyzed.

S2 Table. Attributes of four markers on 64 inbred lines and 904 single-crosses (offspring).

S3 Table. Genetic () and residual () variances from genomic prediction validation of LNTI in maize single-crosses using BayesB, RKHS, MASS|RKHS, GBLUP, MAS|GBLUP, additive MAS (MAS(A)), dominance MAS (MAS(D)) and additive + dominance MAS (MASS(AD)).

Acknowledgments

References