Paulino Pérez-Rodríguez

PlnTFDB: updated content and new features of the plant transcription factor database

The Plant Transcription Factor Database (PlnTFDB; http://plntfdb.bio.uni-potsdam.de/v3.0/) is an integrative database that provides putatively complete sets of transcription factors (TFs) and other transcriptional regulators (TRs) in plant species (sensu lato) whose genomes have been completely sequenced and annotated. The complete sets of 84 families of TFs and TRs from 19 species ranging from unicellular red and green algae to angiosperms are included in PlnTFDB, representing >1.6 billion years of evolution of gene regulatory networks. For each gene family, a basic description is provided that is complemented by literature references, and multiple sequence alignments of protein domains. TF or TR gene entries include information of expressed sequence tags, 3D protein structures of homologous proteins, domain architecture and cross-links to other computational resources online. Moreover, the different species in PlnTFDB are linked to each other by means of orthologous genes facilitating cross-species comparisons.

A growth phenotyping pipeline for Arabidopsis thaliana integrating image analysis and rosette area modeling for robust quantification of genotype effects

• To gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind biomass accumulation, it is important to study plant growth behavior. Manually phenotyping large sets of plants requires important human resources and expertise and is typically not feasible for detection of weak growth phenotypes. Here, we established an automated growth phenotyping pipeline for Arabidopsis thaliana to aid researchers in comparing growth behaviors of different genotypes. • The analysis pipeline includes automated image analysis of two-dimensional digital plant images and evaluation of manually annotated information of growth stages. It employs linear mixed-effects models to quantify genotype effects on total rosette area and relative leaf growth rate (RLGR) and ANOVAs to quantify effects on developmental times. • Using the system, a single researcher can phenotype up to 7000 plants d⁻¹. Technical variance is very low (typically < 2%). We show quantitative results for the growth-impaired starch-excess mutant sex4-3 and the growth-enhanced mutant grf9. • We show that recordings of environmental and developmental variables reduce noise levels in the phenotyping datasets significantly and that careful examination of predictor variables (such as d after sowing or germination) is crucial to avoid exaggerations of recorded phenotypes and thus biased conclusions.

Comparison Between Linear and Non-parametric Regression Models for Genome-Enabled Prediction in Wheat

In genome-enabled prediction, parametric, semi-parametric, and non-parametric regression models have been used. This study assessed the predictive ability of linear and non-linear models using dense molecular markers. The linear models were linear on marker effects and included the Bayesian LASSO, Bayesian ridge regression, Bayes A, and Bayes B. The non-linear models (this refers to non-linearity on markers) were reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) regression, Bayesian regularized neural networks (BRNN), and radial basis function neural networks (RBFNN). These statistical models were compared using 306 elite wheat lines from CIMMYT genotyped with 1717 diversity array technology (DArT) markers and two traits, days to heading (DTH) and grain yield (GY), measured in each of 12 environments. It was found that the three non-linear models had better overall prediction accuracy than the linear regression specification. Results showed a consistent superiority of RKHS and RBFNN over the Bayesian LASSO, Bayesian ridge regression, Bayes A, and Bayes B models.

Genomic prediction in biparental tropical maize populations in water-stressed and well-watered environments using low-density and GBS SNPs

One of the most important applications of genomic selection in maize breeding is to predict and identify the best untested lines from biparental populations, when the training and validation sets are derived from the same cross. Nineteen tropical maize biparental populations evaluated in multienvironment trials were used in this study to assess prediction accuracy of different quantitative traits using low-density (~200 markers) and genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), respectively. An extension of the Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Predictor that incorporates genotype × environment (GE) interaction was used to predict genotypic values; cross-validation methods were applied to quantify prediction accuracy. Our results showed that: (1) low-density SNPs (~200 markers) were largely sufficient to get good prediction in biparental maize populations for simple traits with moderate-to-high heritability, but GBS outperformed low-density SNPs for complex traits and simple traits evaluated under stress conditions with low-to-moderate heritability; (2) heritability and genetic architecture of target traits affected prediction performance, prediction accuracy of complex traits (grain yield) were consistently lower than those of simple traits (anthesis date and plant height) and prediction accuracy under stress conditions was consistently lower and more variable than under well-watered conditions for all the target traits because of their poor heritability under stress conditions; and (3) the prediction accuracy of GE models was found to be superior to that of non-GE models for complex traits and marginal for simple traits.

Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: Methods, Models, and Perspectives

Genomic selection (GS) facilitates the rapid selection of superior genotypes and accelerates the breeding cycle. In this review, we discuss the history, principles, and basis of GS and genomic-enabled prediction (GP) as well as the genetics and statistical complexities of GP models, including genomic genotype×environment (G×E) interactions. We also examine the accuracy of GP models and methods for two cereal crops and two legume crops based on random cross-validation. GS applied to maize breeding has shown tangible genetic gains. Based on GP results, we speculate how GS in germplasm enhancement (i.e., prebreeding) programs could accelerate the flow of genes from gene bank accessions to elite lines. Recent advances in hyperspectral image technology could be combined with GS and pedigree-assisted breeding.

Mathematical modeling and comparison of protein size distribution in different plant, animal, fungal and microbial species reveals a negative correlation between protein size and protein number, thus providing insight into the evolution of proteomes

BackgroundThe sizes of proteins are relevant to their biochemical structure and for their biological function. The statistical distribution of protein lengths across a diverse set of taxa can provide hints about the evolution of proteomes.ResultsUsing the full genomic sequences of over 1,302 prokaryotic and 140 eukaryotic species two datasets containing 1.2 and 6.1 million proteins were generated and analyzed statistically. The lengthwise distribution of proteins can be roughly described with a gamma type or log-normal model, depending on the species. However the shape parameter of the gamma model has not a fixed value of 2, as previously suggested, but varies between 1.5 and 3 in different species. A gamma model with unrestricted shape parameter described best the distributions in ~48% of the species, whereas the log-normal distribution described better the observed protein sizes in 42% of the species. The gamma restricted function and the sum of exponentials distribution had a better fitting in only ~5% of the species. Eukaryotic proteins have an average size of 472 aa, whereas bacterial (320 aa) and archaeal (283 aa) proteins are significantly smaller (33-40% on average). Average protein sizes in different phylogenetic groups were: Alveolata (628 aa), Amoebozoa (533 aa), Fornicata (543 aa), Placozoa (453 aa), Eumetazoa (486 aa), Fungi (487 aa), Stramenopila (486 aa), Viridiplantae (392 aa). Amino acid composition is biased according to protein size. Protein length correlated negatively with %C, %M, %K, %F, %R, %W, %Y and positively with %D, %E, %Q, %S and %T. Prokaryotic proteins had a different protein size bias for %E, %G, %K and %M as compared to eukaryotes.ConclusionsMathematical modeling of protein length empirical distributions can be used to asses the quality of small ORFs annotation in genomic releases (detection of too many false positive small ORFs). There is a negative correlation between average protein size and total number of proteins among eukaryotes but not in prokaryotes. The %GC content is positively correlated to total protein number and protein size in prokaryotes but not in eukaryotes. Small proteins have a different amino acid bias than larger proteins. Compared to prokaryotic species, the evolution of eukaryotic proteomes was characterized by increased protein number (massive gene duplication) and substantial changes of protein size (domain addition/subtraction).

Genomic Prediction of Gene Bank Wheat Landraces

This study examines genomic prediction within 8416 Mexican landrace accessions and 2403 Iranian landrace accessions stored in gene banks. The Mexican and Iranian collections were evaluated in separate field trials, including an optimum environment for several traits, and in two separate environments (drought, D and heat, H) for the highly heritable traits, days to heading (DTH), and days to maturity (DTM). Analyses accounting and not accounting for population structure were performed. Genomic prediction models include genotype × environment interaction (G × E). Two alternative prediction strategies were studied: (1) random cross-validation of the data in 20% training (TRN) and 80% testing (TST) (TRN20-TST80) sets, and (2) two types of core sets, “diversity” and “prediction”, including 10% and 20%, respectively, of the total collections. Accounting for population structure decreased prediction accuracy by 15–20% as compared to prediction accuracy obtained when not accounting for population structure. Accounting for population structure gave prediction accuracies for traits evaluated in one environment for TRN20-TST80 that ranged from 0.407 to 0.677 for Mexican landraces, and from 0.166 to 0.662 for Iranian landraces. Prediction accuracy of the 20% diversity core set was similar to accuracies obtained for TRN20-TST80, ranging from 0.412 to 0.654 for Mexican landraces, and from 0.182 to 0.647 for Iranian landraces. The predictive core set gave similar prediction accuracy as the diversity core set for Mexican collections, but slightly lower for Iranian collections. Prediction accuracy when incorporating G × E for DTH and DTM for Mexican landraces for TRN20-TST80 was around 0.60, which is greater than without the G × E term. For Iranian landraces, accuracies were 0.55 for the G × E model with TRN20-TST80. Results show promising prediction accuracies for potential use in germplasm enhancement and rapid introgression of exotic germplasm into elite materials.

Bayesian Genomic Prediction with Genotype × Environment Interaction Kernel Models.

The phenomenon of genotype × environment (G × E) interaction in plant breeding decreases selection accuracy, thereby negatively affecting genetic gains. Several genomic prediction models incorporating G × E have been recently developed and used in genomic selection of plant breeding programs. Genomic prediction models for assessing multi-environment G × E interaction are extensions of a single-environment model, and have advantages and limitations. In this study, we propose two multi-environment Bayesian genomic models: the first model considers genetic effects (u) that can be assessed by the Kronecker product of variance–covariance matrices of genetic correlations between environments and genomic kernels through markers under two linear kernel methods, linear (genomic best linear unbiased predictors, GBLUP) and Gaussian (Gaussian kernel, GK). The other model has the same genetic component as the first model (u) plus an extra component, f, that captures random effects between environments that were not captured by the random effects u. We used five CIMMYT data sets (one maize and four wheat) that were previously used in different studies. Results show that models with G × E always have superior prediction ability than single-environment models, and the higher prediction ability of multi-environment models with u and f over the multi-environment model with only u occurred 85% of the time with GBLUP and 45% of the time with GK across the five data sets. The latter result indicated that including the random effect f is still beneficial for increasing prediction ability after adjusting by the random effect u.

Genome-enabled methods for predicting litter size in pigs: a comparison

Predictive ability of models for litter size in swine on the basis of different sources of genetic information was investigated. Data represented average litter size on 2598, 1604 and 1897 60K genotyped sows from two purebred and one crossbred line, respectively. The average correlation (r) between observed and predicted phenotypes in a 10-fold cross-validation was used to assess predictive ability. Models were: pedigree-based mixed-effects model (PED), Bayesian ridge regression (BRR), Bayesian LASSO (BL), genomic BLUP (GBLUP), reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces regression (RKHS), Bayesian regularized neural networks (BRNN) and radial basis function neural networks (RBFNN). BRR and BL used the marker matrix or its principal component scores matrix (UD) as covariates; RKHS employed a Gaussian kernel with additive codes for markers whereas neural networks employed the additive genomic relationship matrix (G) or UD as inputs. The non-parametric models (RKHS, BRNN, RNFNN) gave similar predictions to the parametric counterparts (average r ranged from 0.15 to 0.23); most of the genome-based models outperformed PED (r = 0.16). Predictive abilities of linear models and RKHS were similar over lines, but BRNN varied markedly, giving the best prediction (r = 0.31) when G was used in crossbreds, but the worst (r = 0.02) when the G matrix was used in one of the purebred lines. The r values for RBFNN ranged from 0.16 to 0.23. Predictive ability was better in crossbreds (0.26) than in purebreds (0.15 to 0.22). This may be related to family structure in the purebred lines.

Genomic Prediction of Genotype × Environment Interaction Kernel Regression Models.

In genomic selection (GS), genotype × environment interaction (G × E) can be modeled by a marker × environment interaction (M × E). The G × E may be modeled through a linear kernel or a nonlinear (Gaussian) kernel. In this study, we propose using two nonlinear Gaussian kernels: the reproducing kernel Hilbert space with kernel averaging (RKHS KA) and the Gaussian kernel with the bandwidth estimated through an empirical Bayesian method (RKHS EB). We performed single‐environment analyses and extended to account for G × E interaction (GBLUP‐G × E, RKHS KA‐G × E and RKHS EB‐G × E) in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and maize (Zea mays L.) data sets. For single‐environment analyses of wheat and maize data sets, RKHS EB and RKHS KA had higher prediction accuracy than GBLUP for all environments. For the wheat data, the RKHS KA‐G × E and RKHS EB‐G × E models did show up to 60 to 68% superiority over the corresponding single environment for pairs of environments with positive correlations. For the wheat data set, the models with Gaussian kernels had accuracies up to 17% higher than that of GBLUP‐G × E. For the maize data set, the prediction accuracy of RKHS EB‐G × E and RKHS KA‐G × E was, on average, 5 to 6% higher than that of GBLUP‐G × E. The superiority of the Gaussian kernel models over the linear kernel is due to more flexible kernels that accounts for small, more complex marker main effects and marker‐specific interaction effects.