IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0074612.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Marker Ascertainment Bias on Genomic Selection Accuracy and Estimates of Genetic Diversity

Author

Listed:
  • Nicolas Heslot
  • Jessica Rutkoski
  • Jesse Poland
  • Jean-Luc Jannink
  • Mark E Sorrells

Abstract

Genome-wide molecular markers are often being used to evaluate genetic diversity in germplasm collections and for making genomic selections in breeding programs. To accurately predict phenotypes and assay genetic diversity, molecular markers should assay a representative sample of the polymorphisms in the population under study. Ascertainment bias arises when marker data is not obtained from a random sample of the polymorphisms in the population of interest. Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) is rapidly emerging as a low-cost genotyping platform, even for the large, complex, and polyploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genome. With GBS, marker discovery and genotyping occur simultaneously, resulting in minimal ascertainment bias. The previous platform of choice for whole-genome genotyping in many species such as wheat was DArT (Diversity Array Technology) and has formed the basis of most of our knowledge about cereals genetic diversity. This study compared GBS and DArT marker platforms for measuring genetic diversity and genomic selection (GS) accuracy in elite U.S. soft winter wheat. From a set of 365 breeding lines, 38,412 single nucleotide polymorphism GBS markers were discovered and genotyped. The GBS SNPs gave a higher GS accuracy than 1,544 DArT markers on the same lines, despite 43.9% missing data. Using a bootstrap approach, we observed significantly more clustering of markers and ascertainment bias with DArT relative to GBS. The minor allele frequency distribution of GBS markers had a deficit of rare variants compared to DArT markers. Despite the ascertainment bias of the DArT markers, GS accuracy for three traits out of four was not significantly different when an equal number of markers were used for each platform. This suggests that the gain in accuracy observed using GBS compared to DArT markers was mainly due to a large increase in the number of markers available for the analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicolas Heslot & Jessica Rutkoski & Jesse Poland & Jean-Luc Jannink & Mark E Sorrells, 2013. "Impact of Marker Ascertainment Bias on Genomic Selection Accuracy and Estimates of Genetic Diversity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-8, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0074612
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074612
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0074612&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0074612?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Md. S. Islam & Per McCord & Quentin D. Read & Lifang Qin & Alexander E. Lipka & Sushma Sood & James Todd & Marcus Olatoye, 2022. "Accuracy of Genomic Prediction of Yield and Sugar Traits in Saccharum spp. Hybrids," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Andrej Kuritzin & Tabea Kischka & Jürgen Schmitz & Gennady Churakov, 2016. "Incomplete Lineage Sorting and Hybridization Statistics for Large-Scale Retroposon Insertion Data," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0074612. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.