Genomic selection in multi‐environment plant breeding trials using a factor analytic linear mixed model
Abstract
Genomic selection (GS) is a statistical and breeding methodology designed to improve genetic gain. It has proven to be successful in animal breeding; however, key points of difference have not been fully considered in the transfer of GS from animal to plant breeding. In plant breeding, individuals (varieties) are typically evaluated across a number of locations in multiple years (environments) in formally designed comparative experiments, called multi-environment trials (METs). The design structure of individual trials can be complex and needs to be modelled appropriately. Another key feature of MET data sets is the presence of variety by environment interaction (VEI), that is the differential response of varieties to a change in environment. In this paper, a single-step factor analytic linear mixed model is developed for plant breeding MET data sets that incorporates molecular marker data, appropriately accommodates non-genetic sources of variation within trials and models VEI. A recently developed set of selection tools, which are natural derivatives of factor analytic models, are used to facilitate GS for a motivating data set from an Australian plant breeding company. The power and versatility of these tools is demonstrated for the variety by environment and marker by environment effects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Factor analytic models are a more parsimonious alternative to fully unstructured models that typically cannot be fitted on datasets with more than a few environments.
“They are a more parsimonious alternative to fully unstructured models that typically cannot be fitted on datasets with more than a few environments (Butler et al. , 2023; Tolhurst et al. , 2019).”
From REML implementations of kernel-based genomic prediction models for genotype x environment x management interactions (2025) · cites this paper as Tolhurst et al. , 2019
Cites
Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions
VanRaden, P. M. (2008) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0980 · Cited by 6,050 · see citing works
Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments
Gilmour, A. R., Cullis, B. R., Verbyla, A. P., & Verbyla, A. P. (1997) · Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics · doi:10.2307/1400446 · Cited by 752 · see citing works
Self-citationSmith, A., Cullis, B., & Thompson, R. (2001) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.01138.x · Cited by 566 · see citing works
Self-citationStatistical Analysis of Field Experiments Using Neighbouring Plots
Besag, J., & Kempton, R. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531047 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Analyzing genotype-environment data by mixed models with multiplicative terms
Piepho, H.-P. (1997) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533976 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Kelly, A. M., Smith, A. B., Eccleston, J. A., & Cullis, B. R. (2007) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2006.08.0540 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Self-citationDias, K. O. D. G., Gezan, S. A., Guimarães, C. T., Nazarian, A., da Costa e Silva, L., Parentoni, S. N., de Oliveira Guimarães, P. E., de Oliveira Anoni, C., Pádua, J. M. V., de Oliveira Pinto, M., et al. (2018) · Heredity · doi:10.1038/s41437-018-0053-6 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Gogel, B., Smith, A., & Cullis, B. (2018) · Euphytica · doi:10.1007/s10681-018-2116-4 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Genomic selection using random regressions on known and latent environmental covariates
Tolhurst, D. J., Gaynor, R. C., Gardunia, B., Hickey, J. M., & Gorjanc, G. (2022) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00122-022-04186-w · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Self-citationMelsen, K. A. C., Gezan, S., Tolhurst, D. J., van Eeuwijk, F. A., & Peeters, C. F. W. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.06844 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“They are a more parsimonious alternative to fully unstructured models that typically cannot be fitted on datasets with more than a few environments (Butler et al. , 2023; Tolhurst et al. , 2019).”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Tolhurst, D. J., Mathews, K. L., Smith, A. B., & Cullis, B. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Wollongong (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Tolhurst, Daniel J.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-06-27
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 279-300
- ISSN
- 0044-3581 (ISSN-L)
- 0931-2668
- 1439-0388
- OpenAlex
- W2954577473
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetics and Plant Breeding
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
- Keywords
- genomic selection, multi-environment trials, plant breeding, variety-by-environment interaction, single-step genomic prediction, genetic gain, selection tools
- MeSH terms
- Plant Breeding, Environment, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Models, Genetic, Selection, Genetic, Models, Statistical, Linear Models, Genomics, Gene-Environment Interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review