Frontiers in Plant Science (Jan 2022)
Pea Grain Protein Content Across Italian Environments: Genetic Relationship With Grain Yield, and Opportunities for Genome-Enabled Selection for Protein Yield
Abstract
Wider pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivation has great interest for European agriculture, owing to its favorable environmental impact and provision of high-protein feedstuff. This work aimed to investigate the extent of genotype × environment interaction (GEI), genetically based trade-offs and polygenic control for crude protein content and grain yield of pea targeted to Italian environments, and to assess the efficiency of genomic selection (GS) as an alternative to phenotypic selection (PS) to increase protein yield per unit area. Some 306 genotypes belonging to three connected recombinant inbred line (RIL) populations derived from paired crosses between elite cultivars were genotyped through genotyping-by-sequencing and phenotyped for grain yield and protein content on a dry matter basis in three autumn-sown environments of northern or central Italy. Line variation for mean protein content ranged from 21.7 to 26.6%. Purely genetic effects, compared with GEI effects, were over two-fold larger for protein content, and over 2-fold smaller for grain and protein yield per unit area. Grain yield and protein content exhibited no inverse genetic correlation. A genome-wide association study revealed a definite polygenic control not only for grain yield but also for protein content, with small amounts of trait variation accounted for by individual loci. On average, the GS predictive ability for individual RIL populations based on the rrBLUP model (which was selected out of four tested models) using by turns two environments for selection and one for validation was moderately high for protein content (0.53) and moderate for grain yield (0.40) and protein yield (0.41). These values were about halved for inter-environment, inter-population predictions using one RIL population for model construction to predict data of the other populations. The comparison between GS and PS for protein yield based on predicted gains per unit time and similar evaluation costs indicated an advantage of GS for model construction including the target RIL population and, in case of multi-year PS, even for model training based on data of a non-target population. In conclusion, protein content is less challenging than grain yield for phenotypic or genome-enabled improvement, and GS is promising for the simultaneous improvement of both traits.
Keywords
