Paper · 2021 · Theoretical and Applied Genetics

Multi-omics prediction of oat agronomic and seed nutritional traits across environments and in distantly related populations

Haixiao Hu; Malachy T. Campbell; Trevor H. Yeats; et al.

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
49
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

KEY MESSAGE: Integration of multi-omics data improved prediction accuracies of oat agronomic and seed nutritional traits in multi-environment trials and distantly related populations in addition to the single-environment prediction. Multi-omics prediction has been shown to be superior to genomic prediction with genome-wide DNA-based genetic markers (G) for predicting phenotypes. However, most of the existing studies were based on historical datasets from one environment; therefore, they were unable to evaluate the efficiency of multi-omics prediction in multi-environment trials and distantly related populations. To fill those gaps, we designed a systematic experiment to collect omics data and evaluate 17 traits in two oat breeding populations planted in single and multiple environments. In the single-environment trial, transcriptomic BLUP (T), metabolomic BLUP (M), G + T, G + M, and G + T + M models showed greater prediction accuracy than GBLUP for 5, 10, 11, 17, and 17 traits, respectively, and metabolites generally performed better than transcripts when combined with SNPs. In the multi-environment trial, multi-trait models with omics data outperformed both counterpart multi-trait GBLUP models and single-environment omics models, and the highest prediction accuracy was achieved when modeling genetic covariance as an unstructured covariance model. We also demonstrated that omics data can be used to prioritize loci from one population with omics data to improve genomic prediction in a distantly related population using a two-kernel linear model that accommodated both likely casual loci with large-effect and loci that explain little or no phenotypic variance. We propose that the two-kernel linear model is superior to most genomic prediction models that assume each variant is equally likely to affect the trait and can be used to improve prediction accuracy for any trait with prior knowledge of genetic architecture.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 11

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In a single environment, transcriptomic BLUP (T) exceeded GBLUP prediction accuracy for 5 traits.

Treatment
transcriptomic BLUP (T)e0
Outcome
prediction accuracye0
Direction
greatere0
Value
5e0
Comparator
GBLUPe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the single-environment trial, transcriptomic BLUP (T), metabolomic BLUP (M), G + T, G + M, and G + T + M models showed greater prediction accuracy than GBLUP for 5, 10, 11, 17, and 17 traits, respectively, and metabolites generally performed better than transcripts when combined with SNPs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In a single environment, metabolomic BLUP (M) exceeded GBLUP prediction accuracy for 10 traits.

Treatment
metabolomic BLUP (M)e0
Outcome
prediction accuracye0
Direction
greatere0
Value
10e0
Comparator
GBLUPe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the single-environment trial, transcriptomic BLUP (T), metabolomic BLUP (M), G + T, G + M, and G + T + M models showed greater prediction accuracy than GBLUP for 5, 10, 11, 17, and 17 traits, respectively, and metabolites generally performed better than transcripts when combined with SNPs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In a single environment, G + T exceeded GBLUP prediction accuracy for 11 traits.

Treatment
G + Te0
Outcome
prediction accuracye0
Direction
greatere0
Value
11e0
Comparator
GBLUPe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the single-environment trial, transcriptomic BLUP (T), metabolomic BLUP (M), G + T, G + M, and G + T + M models showed greater prediction accuracy than GBLUP for 5, 10, 11, 17, and 17 traits, respectively, and metabolites generally performed better than transcripts when combined with SNPs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In a single environment, G + M exceeded GBLUP prediction accuracy for 17 traits.

Treatment
G + Me0
Outcome
prediction accuracye0
Direction
greatere0
Value
17e0
Comparator
GBLUPe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the single-environment trial, transcriptomic BLUP (T), metabolomic BLUP (M), G + T, G + M, and G + T + M models showed greater prediction accuracy than GBLUP for 5, 10, 11, 17, and 17 traits, respectively, and metabolites generally performed better than transcripts when combined with SNPs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In a single environment, G + T + M exceeded GBLUP prediction accuracy for 17 traits.

Treatment
G + T + Me0
Outcome
prediction accuracye0
Direction
greatere0
Value
17e0
Comparator
GBLUPe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the single-environment trial, transcriptomic BLUP (T), metabolomic BLUP (M), G + T, G + M, and G + T + M models showed greater prediction accuracy than GBLUP for 5, 10, 11, 17, and 17 traits, respectively, and metabolites generally performed better than transcripts when combined with SNPs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Metabolites generally outperformed transcripts when combined with SNPs.

Outcome
prediction accuracye0
Direction
bettere0
Qualifier
when combined with SNPse0
Comparator
transcriptse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the single-environment trial, transcriptomic BLUP (T), metabolomic BLUP (M), G + T, G + M, and G + T + M models showed greater prediction accuracy than GBLUP for 5, 10, 11, 17, and 17 traits, respectively, and metabolites generally performed better than transcripts when combined with SNPs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Multi-environment multi-trait omics models outperformed counterpart multi-trait GBLUP models.

Outcome
multi-trait models with omics data outperformede0
Direction
outperformede0
Comparator
counterpart multi-trait GBLUP modelse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the multi-environment trial, multi-trait models with omics data outperformed both counterpart multi-trait GBLUP models and single-environment omics models, and the highest prediction accuracy was achieved when modeling genetic covariance as an unstructured covariance model.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1369 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Multi-environment multi-trait omics models outperformed single-environment omics models.

Outcome
multi-trait models with omics data outperformede0
Direction
outperformede0
Comparator
single-environment omics modelse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the multi-environment trial, multi-trait models with omics data outperformed both counterpart multi-trait GBLUP models and single-environment omics models, and the highest prediction accuracy was achieved when modeling genetic covariance as an unstructured covariance model.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1369 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Unstructured genetic covariance modeling gave the highest prediction accuracy.

Outcome
prediction accuracye0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
unstructured covariance modele0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the multi-environment trial, multi-trait models with omics data outperformed both counterpart multi-trait GBLUP models and single-environment omics models, and the highest prediction accuracy was achieved when modeling genetic covariance as an unstructured covariance model.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1369 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Omics-based locus prioritization with a two-kernel model improved prediction in a distantly related oat population.

Outcome
genomic predictione0
Direction
improvee0
Qualifier
distantly related populatione0
Comparator
one population with omics datae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We also demonstrated that omics data can be used to prioritize loci from one population with omics data to improve genomic prediction in a distantly related population using a two-kernel linear model that accommodated both likely casual loci with large-effect and loci that explain little or no phenotypic variance.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1370–1685 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors propose the two-kernel model to improve prediction accuracy for traits with known genetic architecture.

Outcome
improve prediction accuracye0
Qualifier
prior knowledge of genetic architecturee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We propose that the two-kernel linear model is superior to most genomic prediction models that assume each variant is equally likely to affect the trait and can be used to improve prediction accuracy for any trait with prior knowledge of genetic architecture.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1686–1945 · show in text ↑
t0

“oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 26–29 · show in text ↑