title: The importance of phenotypic data analysis for genomic prediction - a case study comparing different spatial models in rye.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Genomic prediction is becoming a daily tool for plant breeders. It makes use of genotypic information to make predictions used for selection decisions. The accuracy of the predictions depends on the number of genotypes used in the calibration; hence, there is a need of combining data across years. A proper phenotypic analysis is a crucial prerequisite for accurate calibration of genomic prediction procedures. We compared stage-wise approaches to analyse a real dataset of a multi-environment trial (MET) in rye, which was connected between years only through one check, and used different spatial models to obtain better estimates, and thus, improved predictive abilities for genomic prediction. The aims of this study were to assess the advantage of using spatial models for the predictive abilities of genomic prediction, to identify suitable procedures to analyse a MET weakly connected across years using different stage-wise approaches, and to explore genomic prediction as a tool for selection of models for phenotypic data analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Using complex spatial models did not significantly improve the predictive ability of genomic prediction, but using row and column effects yielded the highest predictive abilities of all models. In the case of MET poorly connected between years, analysing each year separately and fitting year as a fixed effect in the genomic prediction stage yielded the most realistic predictive abilities. Predictive abilities can also be used to select models for phenotypic data analysis. The trend of the predictive abilities was not the same as the traditionally used Akaike information criterion, but favoured in the end the same models.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Making predictions using weakly linked datasets is of utmost interest for plant breeders. We provide an example with suggestions on how to handle such cases. Rather than relying on checks we show how to use year means across all entries for integrating data across years. It is further shown that fitting of row and column effects captures most of the heterogeneity in the field trials analysed.
authors.forename: Angela-Maria
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Bernal-Vasquez
authors.forename: Jens
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Möhring
authors.forename: Malthe
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schmidt
authors.forename: Manfred
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schönleben
authors.forename: Chris-Carolin
authors.initials: CC
authors.lastname: Schön
authors.affiliation: Bioinformatics Unit, Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstrasse 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany. piepho@uni-hohenheim.de.
authors.forename: Hans-Peter
authors.initials: HP
authors.lastname: Piepho
mesh_terms: D023281:Genomics / Q000379:methods*; D015233:Models, Statistical; D010641:Phenotype; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012434:Secale / Q000235:genetics*; D013223:Statistics as Topic / Q000379:methods*
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2011 Jul;123(2):339-50
references.pmid: 21505832
references.citation: Biom J. 2008 Apr;50(2):164-89
references.pmid: 18383446
references.citation: Biom J. 2012 Nov;54(6):844-60
references.pmid: 23007738
references.citation: Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
references.pmid: 11290733
references.citation: Genetics. 2013 Jun;194(2):493-503
references.pmid: 23535384
references.citation: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Nov;85(4):935-56
references.pmid: 20569253
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2013 Jan;126(1):69-82
references.pmid: 22903736
references.citation: J Stat Comput Simul. 2009 Jan 1;79(1):93-106
references.pmid: 19746199
references.citation: BMC Proc. 2012 May 21;6 Suppl 2:S3
references.pmid: 22640599
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2014 May;127(5):1049-60
references.pmid: 24553963
references.citation: BMC Proc. 2012 May 21;6 Suppl 2:S13
references.pmid: 22640547
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2012 Aug 1;28(15):2086-7
references.pmid: 22689388
references.citation: G3 (Bethesda). 2013 Dec 09;3(12):2105-14
references.pmid: 24082033
references.citation: Biometrics. 2006 Mar;62(1):103-8
references.pmid: 16542235
references.citation: BMC Genomics. 2013 Dec 06;14:860
references.pmid: 24314298
references.citation: G3 (Bethesda). 2012 Nov;2(11):1427-36
references.pmid: 23173094
references.citation: Genetics. 2007 Nov;177(3):1881-8
references.pmid: 18039886
references.citation: Genetics. 2008 Mar;178(3):1709-23
references.pmid: 18385116
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
references.pmid: 18946147
references.citation: J Anim Breed Genet. 2007 Dec;124(6):331-41
references.pmid: 18076470