Maximization of genetic gain in forest tree breeding programs is contingent on the accuracy of the predicted breeding values and precision of the estimated genetic parameters. We investigated the effect of the combined use of contemporary pedigree information and genomic relatedness estimates on the accuracy of predicted breeding values and precision of estimated genetic parameters, as well as rankings of selection candidates, using single-step genomic evaluation (HBLUP). In this study, two traits with diverse heritabilities [tree height (HT) and wood density (WD)] were assessed at various levels of family genotyping efforts (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%) from a population of white spruce (Picea glauca) consisting of 1694 trees from 214 open-pollinated families, representing 43 provenances in Québec, Canada. The results revealed that HBLUP bivariate analysis is effective in reducing the known bias in heritability estimates of open-pollinated populations, as it exposes hidden relatedness, potential pedigree errors, and inbreeding. The addition of genomic information in the analysis considerably improved the accuracy in breeding value estimates by accounting for both Mendelian sampling and historical coancestry that were not captured by the contemporary pedigree alone. Increasing family genotyping efforts were associated with continuous improvement in model fit, precision of genetic parameters, and breeding value accuracy. Yet, improvements were observed even at minimal genotyping effort, indicating that even modest genotyping effort is effective in improving genetic evaluation. The combined utilization of both pedigree and genomic information may be a cost-effective approach to increase the accuracy of breeding values in forest tree breeding programs where shallow pedigrees and large testing populations are the norm.

Départment des Sciences du Bois et de la Forêt Faculté de Foresterie de Géographie et Géomatique Université Laval Québec G1V 0A6 Canada

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Oklahoma State University Stillwater Oklahoma 74078 3035

Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences Faculty of Forestry University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia V6T 1Z4 Canada

Department of Genetics and Physiology of Forest Trees Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague 165 21 Praha 6 Czech Republic

Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria Instituto de Recursos Biológicos Las Cabañas y De Los Reseros s n 1686 Hurlingham Buenos Aires Argentina

Pharmacognosy Department Faculty of Pharmacy Alexandria University Alexandria 21521 Egypt

Scion Whakarewarewa Rotorua 3046 New Zealand

See more in PubMed

Aguilar I., Misztal I., Johnson D. L., Legarra A., Tsuruta S., et al. , 2010.  Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. J. Dairy Sci. 93: 743–752. PubMed

Askew G. R., El-Kassaby Y. A., 1994.  Estimation of relationship coefficients among progeny derived from wind-pollinated orchard seeds. Theor. Appl. Genet. 88: 267–272. PubMed

Beaulieu J., Doerksen T., Clément S., MacKay J., Bousquet J., 2014.  Accuracy of genomic selection models in a large population of open-pollinated families in white spruce. Heredity 113: 343–352. PubMed PMC

Burdon R. D., Shelbourne C. J. A., 1971.  Breeding populations for recurrent selection: conflicts and possible solutions. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 1: 174–193.

Butler D. G., Cullis B. R., Gilmour A. R., Gogel B. J., 2009.  ASReml-R Reference Manual. The State of Queensland, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Brisbane, Australia.

Calus M. P. L., Meuwissen T. H. E., De Roos A. P. W., Veerkamp R. F., 2008.  Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes. Genetics 178: 553–561. PubMed PMC

Cappa E. P., Klápště J., Garcia M. N., Villalba P. V., Poltri S. N. M., 2016.  SSRs, SNPs and DArTs comparison on estimation of relatedness and genetic parameters’ precision from a small half-sib sample population of Eucalyptus grandis. Mol. Breed. 36: 1–19.

Christensen O. F., Lund M. S., 2010.  Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genet. Sel. Evol. 42: 2. PubMed PMC

Christensen O. F., Madsen P., Nielsen B., Ostersen T., Su G., 2012.  Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. Animal 6: 1565–1571. PubMed

Doerksen T. K., Herbinger C. M., 2010.  Impact of reconstructed pedigrees on progeny-test breeding values in red spruce. Tree Genet. Genomes 6: 591–600.

Ducrocq V., Patry C., 2010.  Combining genomic and classical information in national BLUP evaluation to reduce bias due to genomic pre-selection. Interbull Bull. 41: 33–36.

Dutkowski G. W., e Silva J. C., Gilmour A. R., Lopez G. A., 2002.  Spatial analysis methods for forest genetic trials. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 2201–2214.

El-Kassaby Y. A., Lstibůrek M., 2009.  Breeding without breeding. Genet. Res. 91: 111–120. PubMed

El-Kassaby Y. A., Cappa E. P., Liewlaksaneeyanawin C., Klápště J., Lstibŭrek M., 2011.  Breeding without breeding: is a complete pedigree necessary for efficient breeding? PLoS One 6: e25737. PubMed PMC

El-Kassaby Y. A., Klápště J., Guy R. D., 2012.  Breeding without breeding: selection using the genomic best linear unbiased predictor method (GBLUP). New For. 43: 631–637.

Falconer D. S., Mackay T. F., 1996.  Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Longmans Green, Harlow, Essex.

Forni S., Aguilar I., Misztal I., 2011.  Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information. Genet. Sel. Evol. 43: 1. PubMed PMC

Frentiu F. D., Clegg S. M., Chittock J., Burke T., Blows M. W., et al. , 2008.  Pedigree-free animal models: the relatedness matrix reloaded. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 275: 639–647. PubMed PMC

GamalEl-Dien O., Ratcliffe B., Klápště J., Porth I., Chen C., et al. , 2016.  Implementation of the realized genomic relationship matrix to open-pollinated white spruce family testing for disentangling additive from nonadditive genetic effects. G3 (Bethesda) 6: 743–753. PubMed PMC

Grattapaglia D., Resende M. D., 2011.  Genomic selection in forest tree breeding. Tree Genet. Genomes 7: 241–255.

Habier D., Fernando R. L., Garrick D. J., 2013.  Genomic BLUP decoded: a look into the black box of genomic prediction. Genetics 194: 597–607. PubMed PMC

Henderson C. R., 1984.  Applications of Linear Models in Animal Breeding. University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.

Huber D. A., White T. L., Hodge G. R., 1992.  The efficiency of half-sib, half-diallel and circular mating designs in the estimation of genetic parameters in forestry: a simulation. For. Sci. 38: 757–776.

Jayawickrama K. J. S., Carson M. J., 2000.  A breeding strategy for the New Zealand radiata pine breeding cooperative. Silvae Genet. 49: 82–89.

Kalinowski S. T., Taper M. L., Marshall T. C., 2007.  Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol. Ecol. 16: 1099–1106. PubMed

Klápště J., Lstibŭrek M., El-Kassaby Y. A., 2014.  Estimates of genetic parameters and breeding values from western larch open-pollinated families using marker-based relationship. Tree Genet. Genomes 10: 241–249.

Koreckỳ J., Klápště J., Lstibŭrek M., Kobliha J., Nelson C. D., et al. , 2013.  Comparison of genetic parameters from marker-based relationship, sibship, and combined models in Scots pine multi-site open-pollinated tests. Tree Genet. Genomes 9: 1227–1235.

Legarra A., Aguilar I., Misztal I., 2009.  A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 4656–4663. PubMed

Liu H., Sørensen A. C., Meuwissen T. H. E., Berg P., 2014.  Allele frequency changes due to hitch-hiking in genomic selection programs. Genet. Sel. Evol. 46: 8. PubMed PMC

Meuwissen T. H. E., Luan T., Woolliams J. A., 2011.  The unified approach to the use of genomic and pedigree information in genomic evaluations revisited. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 128: 429–439. PubMed

Misztal I., Legarra A., Aguilar I., 2009.  Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci. 92: 4648–4655. PubMed

Namkoong G., Kang H. C., Brouard J. S., 2012.  Tree Breeding: Principles and Strategies. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg, Germany.

Ødegård J., Meuwissen T. H. E., 2012.  Estimation of heritability from limited family data using genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44: 16. PubMed PMC

Oliehoek P. A., Windig J. J., Van Arendonk J. A., Bijma P., 2006.  Estimating relatedness between individuals in general populations with a focus on their use in conservation programs. Genetics 173: 483–496. PubMed PMC

Pavy N., Gagnon F., Rigault P., Blais S., Deschênes A., et al. , 2013.  Development of high-density SNP genotyping arrays for white spruce (Picea glauca) and transferability to subtropical and nordic congeners. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 13: 324–336. PubMed

Porth I., Klápště J., Skyba O., Lai B. S., Geraldes A., et al. , 2013.  Populus trichocarpa cell wall chemistry and ultrastructure trait variation, genetic control and genetic correlations. New Phytol. 197: 777–790. PubMed

Powell J. E., Visscher P. M., Goddard M. E., 2010.  Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11: 800–805. PubMed

Rigault P., Boyle B., Lepage P., Cooke J. E., Bousquet J., et al. , 2011.  A white spruce gene catalog for conifer genome analyses. Plant Physiol. 157: 14–28. PubMed PMC

Ritland K., 1996.  Estimators for pairwise relatedness and individual inbreeding coefficients. Genet. Res. 67: 175–185.

Squillace A. E., 1974.  Average genetic correlations among offspring from open-pollinated forest trees. Silvae Genet. 23: 149–156.

VanRaden P. M., 2008.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 91: 4414–4423. PubMed

Visscher P. M., Medland S. E., Ferreira M. A., Morley K. I., Zhu G., et al. , 2006.  Assumption-free estimation of heritability from genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing between full siblings. PLoS Genet. 2: e41. PubMed PMC

Vitezica Z. G., Aguilar I., Misztal I., Legarra A., 2011.  Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection. Genet. Res. 93: 357–366. PubMed

Wang J., 2004.  Sibship reconstruction from genetic data with typing errors. Genetics 166: 1963–1979. PubMed PMC

Evaluation of the efficiency of genomic versus pedigree predictions for growth and wood quality traits in Scots pine