ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Plant Sci.
Sec. Plant Breeding
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1631408
This article is part of the Research TopicAdvances in Breeding for Quantitative Disease Resistance - Volume IIView all articles
Assessment of the potential for genomic selection to improve resistance to fusarium stalk rot in maize
Provisionally accepted- 1University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, Bangalore, India
- 2Indian Agricultural Research Institute (ICAR), New Delhi, National Capital Territory of Delhi, India
- 3Corteva Agriscience Bangalore, India, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Fusarium stalk rot (FSR), caused by Fusarium verticilliodes, is a serious disease in maize.Resistance to FSR is complexly inherited. Thus, an investigation was carried out to predict and validate the genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) for FSR resistance. Three doubled haploid (DH) populations induced from F1 and F2 of the cross VL1043 × CM212 and F2 of the cross VL121096 × CM202 were used in the current study. Six different parametric models (Genomic-Best Linear Unbiased Predictors (GBLUP), BayesA, BayesB, BayesC, Bayesian least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (BLASSO), and Bayesian Ridge Regression (BRR) were employed to estimate the prediction accuracy. The estimates of descriptive statistics and genetic variability parameters, which include mean, standardized range, genetic variance, phenotypic and genotypic coefficients of variations, broad sense heritability, and genetic advance as per cent mean (GAM), were relatively higher in DHF2s than those in DHF1s. Further, the accuracy of predicted GEBV for FSR resistance was assessed using five-fold and independent validation. The training population size and marker density were optimized by considering different proportions of training set (TS) and validation set (VS) and varying marker density from 40 to 100%. Prediction accuracies displayed an increasing trend with an increase in the proportion of training set size and marker density in all three DH populations. The TS:VS proportion of 75:25 in DHF1 (VL1043 × CM212) and DHF2 (VL121096 × CM202), and 80:20 in DHF2 of VL1043 × CM212 resulted in greater prediction accuracy than other TS:VS proportions. Study of linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay pattern across all the populations indicated that the number of markers employed were sufficient to conduct a genomic prediction (GP) study in two DHF2 populations of crosses VL1043 × CM212 and VL121096 × CM202. Prediction accuracies of 0.24 and 0.17 were recorded for FSR resistance in independent validation when DHF2 of cross VL121096 × CM202 was used for validation and DHF1 and DHF2s from the cross VL1043 × CM212 as training sets. A significant positive correlation of FSR resistance between DHs selected based on their GEBVs and those selected based on test cross performance indicated the efficiency of genomic prediction models.
Keywords: Maize, Fusarium stalk rot (FSR), doubled haploids, GEBVS, Genomic prediction, genomic selection
Received: 30 May 2025; Accepted: 18 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 CHANDAPPA, BABU B M, S, Banakar, N, GANIGA, G, D C and PANDRAVADA. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: LOHITHASWA HIRENALLUR CHANDAPPA, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, Bangalore, India
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.