Back

Local genomic estimates provide a powerful framework for haplotype discovery

Shaffer, W.; Papin, V.; Yadav, S.; Voss-Fels, K. P.; Hickey, L.; Hayes, B.; Dinglasan, E. G.

2025-09-02 genetics
10.1101/2025.08.28.672830 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Quantitative trait loci (QTL) discovery studies on diversity panels or breeding populations typically use genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to estimate marker effects. For plant and animal breeding applications, researchers increasingly recognize the potential benefits of identifying superior haplotypes (markers in linkage disequilibrium; LD) rather than relying on single markers, as traditional approaches inefficiently account for cumulative signals from incomplete LD with QTL or split effects when multiple markers are in high LD with QTL. Using the genomic prediction framework, the local GEBV (localGEBV) method was developed in animal breeding and has been adopted in crop haplotype mapping studies; however, no study has thoroughly quantified the utility of this method or systematically compared outcomes to traditional GWAS approaches. Here, we characterized a strategy to group markers in chromosomal segments based on LD (haplotype blocks or haploblocks), computed localGEBV as a linear contrast of marker effects within each haploblock, and utilised the variance of localGEBV to enhance QTL discovery compared to traditional GWAS. Marker effects for localGEBV were estimated with ridge-regression best linear unbiased prediction (rrBLUP) and BayesR, with results compared to two common GWAS approaches. Using the barley row-type trait, we demonstrated that localGEBV improved QTL discovery and phenotypic prediction compared to single markers. Furthermore, localGEBV results were robust to the choice of prior marker assumptions and blocking parameters, enabling flexibility in fine or broad-scale QTL mapping. Overall, our findings establish localGEBV as a haplotype-based strategy capable of leveraging localized genomic effects to improve QTL discovery and, potentially, genomic selection.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Plant Genome
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
46 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
3
Horticulture Research
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.4%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 28%
6.3%
5
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 24%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
Plant Phenomics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
8
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
The Plant Phenome Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
10
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.6%
11
The Plant Journal
197 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
12
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
Plant Physiology
217 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Plant Communications
35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
15
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
16
Plant Biotechnology Journal
56 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
17
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
18
G3
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
19
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
20
Crop Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
21
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
22
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
23
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
24
Journal of Experimental Botany
195 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Journal of Genetics and Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
26
Genetics Selection Evolution
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
27
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 61%
0.8%
28
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%