其實(shí)不管做哪個性狀，以下幾個名詞算是過去二三十年以及未來若干年在植物育種領(lǐng)域所能看到的大部分文章了,這里先跟大家簡單總結(jié)一下。另外對于幾種方法的評論其實(shí)也主要來源于下面解讀的文章，加上小編的一些拙見。

最傳統(tǒng)也是目前最有效的育種方法：Phenotypic selection

后來從動物研究領(lǐng)域引入了四種結(jié)合遺傳學(xué)的方法：

鑒定優(yōu)良性狀遺傳位點(diǎn)的方法：QTL mapping 和GWAS

優(yōu)良性狀實(shí)際應(yīng)用的方法：MAS和GS

QTL mapping做了幾十年，GWAS也火了十來年了，但感覺對育種上也就對像rust這種單基因抗病的有點(diǎn)作用。不過隨著小麥序列的釋放，讓我們對這四種方法拭目以待。

目前感覺植物上未來最有前途的方法：High-throughput phenotyping。

接下來進(jìn)入今天正文：最近關(guān)于赤霉病的文章還是挺多的！小編過去三周已經(jīng)給大家介紹了幾篇文章，有兩篇也都是最新發(fā)表的。剛剛過去的這一周又有一篇相關(guān)文章發(fā)表，雖然所在雜志的影響因子不是很高，但實(shí)驗(yàn)的內(nèi)容還是非常扎實(shí)的。小編今天也正好借這篇文章來談?wù)勀壳俺嗝共】剐杂N研究的方法！

文章題目如下，第一作者是Thomas Miedaner，通訊作者是Tobias Wurschum，單位是成立于1818年的德國霍恩海姆大學(xué)（University of Hohenheim），在農(nóng)業(yè)研究領(lǐng)域算是非常好的一所大學(xué)了。另外，我們上次介紹的Hermann Buertmayr也是本文的作者之一。

文章概括：

本文的主體是用GWAS的方法來鑒定一個durum germplasm中的抗性位點(diǎn)。但最有趣的部分是文章利用所鑒定到的主效QTL以及所有QTL來評估MAS，GS，和Phenotypic Selection三種方法在實(shí)際抗性育種中的應(yīng)用價值。最后的結(jié)論大家一定會覺得有點(diǎn)意思，但應(yīng)該也不會驚訝。

材料：

1. A highly diverse panel of 184 durum wheat lines.

2. In brief, this diversity panel comprised 170 winter and 14spring types, including old as well as modern cultivars with economic importance as well as current breeding lines.

3. Six groups according to their geographic origin: Austria and Germany (Group 1), France (Group 2), Canada and United States (Group 3), Italy and Spain (Group 4), Hungary (Group 5) and Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Slovakia,Turkey and Ukraine (Group 6).

田間設(shè)計：

小編前段時間講過一些field design的內(nèi)容，目前也還在繼續(xù)學(xué)習(xí)當(dāng)中，這篇文章用到的是a-lattice design，好像在國內(nèi)和美國用的并不是很多。

1. In total, five environments (location-by-year combinations) were tested.

2. The genotypes were sown mechanically in an a-lattice design (Schutz & Cockerham, 1962) with three replications in HOH and OLI, and two replications in TUL, as observation plots of one row with 1.25 m length.

接種方法：

田間Spray

Disease Evaluation：

本文采用的方法在genetic study中好像并不常見，但是在育種項(xiàng)目中還是蠻多的：一個數(shù)值（1-9）綜合考慮Incidence和Severity，這在育種中算是簡單有效的一種方法。但是對于genetic study來說，F(xiàn)HB的incidence和severity經(jīng)常是由不同遺傳位點(diǎn)控制的，所以拿這樣一個數(shù)值作為唯一的phenotyping來進(jìn)行GWAS算是本文的一個弱點(diǎn)吧。另外，DON的含量其實(shí)對于育種有更大的價值，本文也沒有關(guān)于這項(xiàng)的數(shù)據(jù)。

1. FHB was rated from 1 to 9, where 1 indicates no visible symptoms within a plot, and 2–9 represents <5%, 5%–15%, 15%–25%, 25%–45%, 45%–65%, 65%–  85%, 85%–95% and >95%, respectively, of all spikelets of a plot showing symptoms

2. This rating reflects the number of infected spikes per plot(type I resistance) as well as the number of infected spikelets per spike (typeII resistance) in a single score.

GS和Prediction ability：如果有做相關(guān)方面的可以詳細(xì)閱讀一下這部分的內(nèi)容：

1. The genomic prediction was made by Ridge Regression-BLUP with the R package “rrBLUP”

2. To compare the predictive ability of MAS and genomic selection, we used the four markers explaining more than 5% of the genotypic variance for MAS, while genomic prediction was based on all genome-wide markers.

3. The predictive ability of both approaches was estimated as Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the predicted and observed trait values of 20% of the lines, with the prediction being based on effect estimates from the remaining 80%of the lines. Resampling was repeated 1000 times.

4. All calculations were made with the open-source programming language and statistical software R (R Core Team 2013) and the statistical software package ASReml-R 3.0 to solve the mixed models.

結(jié)果：

對于表型數(shù)據(jù)，遺傳力算是FHB當(dāng)中非常高的了，應(yīng)該是由于大部分都是感病。

對于GWAS結(jié)果，感覺并不是很好，檢測到的幾個抗病位點(diǎn)都只是單一marker，而沒有出現(xiàn)helicopter的多markers的結(jié)果，說明本文的marker密度還是不夠的。

最后，比較MAS和GS兩種方法的predictive ability。It must be noted here that the predictive ability of MAS also exploits relatedness between lines and not only QTL effects (Gowda et al., 2014)。

Boxplots for the comparison of marker-assisted selection using the same four QTL and genomic prediction (GP) using all markers. Genotypes with the tall Rht-B1a allele were excluded from both analyses

討論

1. Marker-assisted selection (MAS) based on the four strongest QTL yielded a predictive ability of 0.65, while genomic selection (GS) taking into account all genome-wide markers only marginally improved the predictive ability to 0.70. 對于本文用到的這個群體來說，如果marker的密度在加大一些的話，相信MAS和GS的predition要能增加很多！

2. The predictive ability of phenotypic selection, being roughly estimated as the square root of the heritability, reached 0.92 and was thus by far the highest value in this comparison.

3. Phenotypic selection certainly takes longer than genomic selection, but on the other hand, population sizes are also not so limited as reliable high-throughput FHB phenotyping platforms have been developed in breeding companies (E. Ebmeyer, personal communication).

4. Furthermore, recurrent selection can be accelerated using early generations for FHB evaluation, such as F1:2 bulks after recombination of the best entries (Miedaner et al., 2009).

5. Nevertheless, the rather high predictive ability of genomic prediction suggests that this approach might be a valuable genomic tool to assist FHB resistance breeding if the lines are already genotyped with markers, for example, to utilize genomic prediction for yield or quality traits.