Comparing a Mixed Model Approach to Traditional Stability Estimators for Mapping Genotype by Environment Interactions and Yield Stability in Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]

Identifying genetic loci associated with yield stability has helped plant breeders and geneticists begin to understand the role and influence of genotype by environment (GxE) interactions in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] productivity, as well as other crops. Quantifying a genotype's range of performance across testing locations has been developed over decades with dozens of methodologies available. This includes directly modeling GxE interactions as part of an overall model for yield, as well as methods which generate overall yield "stability" values from multi-environment trial data. Correspondence between these methods as it pertains to the outcomes of genome wide association studies (GWAS) has not been well defined. In this study, the GWAS results for yield and yield stability were compared in 213 soybean lines across 11 environments to determine their utility and potential intersection. Both univariate and multivariate conventional stability estimates were considered alongside a mixed model for yield that fit marker by environment interactions as a random effect. One-hundred and six total QTL were discovered across all mapping results, however, genetic loci that were significant in the mixed model for grain yield that fit marker by environment interactions were completely distinct from those that were significant when mapping using traditional stability measures as a phenotype. Furthermore, 73.21% of QTL discovered in the mixed model were determined to cause a crossover interaction effect which cause genotype rank changes between environments. Overall, the QTL discovered via explicitly mapping GxE interactions also explained more yield variance that those QTL associated with differences in traditional stability estimates making their theoretical impact on selection greater. A lack of intersecting results between mapping approaches highlights the importance of examining stability in multiple contexts when attempting to manipulate GxE interactions in soybean.

Genotyping by sequencing for genomic prediction in a soybean breeding population

BACKGROUND

Advances in genotyping technology, such as genotyping by sequencing (GBS), are making genomic prediction more attractive to reduce breeding cycle times and costs associated with phenotyping. Genomic prediction and selection has been studied in several crop species, but no reports exist in soybean. The objectives of this study were (i) evaluate prospects for genomic selection using GBS in a typical soybean breeding program and (ii) evaluate the effect of GBS marker selection and imputation on genomic prediction accuracy. To achieve these objectives, a set of soybean lines sampled from the University of Nebraska Soybean Breeding Program were genotyped using GBS and evaluated for yield and other agronomic traits at multiple Nebraska locations.

RESULTS

Genotyping by sequencing scored 16,502 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with minor-allele frequency (MAF) > 0.05 and percentage of missing values ≤ 5% on 301 elite soybean breeding lines. When SNPs with up to 80% missing values were included, 52,349 SNPs were scored. Prediction accuracy for grain yield, assessed using cross validation, was estimated to be 0.64, indicating good potential for using genomic selection for grain yield in soybean. Filtering SNPs based on missing data percentage had little to no effect on prediction accuracy, especially when random forest imputation was used to impute missing values. The highest accuracies were observed when random forest imputation was used on all SNPs, but differences were not significant. A standard additive G-BLUP model was robust; modeling additive-by-additive epistasis did not provide any improvement in prediction accuracy. The effect of training population size on accuracy began to plateau around 100, but accuracy steadily climbed until the largest possible size was used in this analysis. Including only SNPs with MAF > 0.30 provided higher accuracies when training populations were smaller.

CONCLUSIONS

Using GBS for genomic prediction in soybean holds good potential to expedite genetic gain. Our results suggest that standard additive G-BLUP models can be used on unfiltered, imputed GBS data without loss in accuracy.