Manish K. Pandey, Sunil Chaudhari, Diego Jarquin, Pasupuleti Janila, Jose Crossa, Sudam C. Patil, Subramaniam Sundravadana, Dhirendra Khare, Ramesh S. Bhat, Thankappan Radhakrishnan, John M. Hickey & Rajeev K. Varshney

Theoretical and Applied Genetics November 2020; vol. 133:3101–3117.

Key message

Comparative assessment identified naïve interaction model, and naïve and informed interaction GS models suitable for achieving higher prediction accuracy in groundnut keeping in mind the high genotype × environment interaction for complex traits.

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) can be an efficient and cost-effective breeding approach which captures both small- and large-effect genetic factors and therefore promises to achieve higher genetic gains for complex traits such as yield and oil content in groundnut. A training population was constituted with 340 elite lines followed by genotyping with 58 K ‘Axiom_Arachis’ SNP array and phenotyping for key agronomic traits at three locations in India. Four GS models were tested using three different random cross-validation schemes (CV0, CV1 and CV2). These models are: (1) model 1 (M1 = E + L) which includes the main effects of environment (E) and line (L); (2) model 2 (M2 = E + L + G) which includes the main effects of markers (G) in addition to E and L; (3) model 3 (M3 = E + L + G + GE), a naïve interaction model; and (4) model 4 (E + L + G + LE + GE), a naïve and informed interaction model. Prediction accuracy estimated for four models indicated clear advantage of the inclusion of marker information which was reflected in better prediction accuracy achieved with models M2, M3 and M4 as compared to M1 model. High prediction accuracies (> 0.600) were observed for days to 50% flowering, days to maturity, hundred seed weight, oleic acid, rust@90 days, rust@105 days and late leaf spot@90 days, while medium prediction accuracies (0.400–0.600) were obtained for pods/plant, shelling  %, and total yield/plant. Assessment of comparative prediction accuracy for different GS models to perform selection for untested genotypes, and unobserved and unevaluated environments provided greater insights on potential application of GS breeding in groundnut.

See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00122-020-03658-1

Figure 1: Cross-validation between the predicted and the observed values for a unobserved environment (CV0); b untested genotypes (CV1); and unevaluated environment (CV2) for different agronomic, quality and disease resistance traits of groundnut