Review on Genome-Wide Associa ion Studies (GWAS) and Genomic Selec ion (GS) for growth and yield related traits in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)

Author info »

Introduction

The ongoing upgrades in DNA sequencing have made it conceivable to hereditarily improve fundamental attributes, for example, grain quality and resistance to biotic and abiotic stress. Most of the grain chromosome's genomic district is covered by huge number of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) got by cutting edge sequencing (NGS, for example, Genotyping-By-Sequencing (GBS). To find the alleles overseeing wanted highlights, various compelling measurable hereditary qualities methods were put out. One of those supportive methods is the vast affiliation study (GWAS), which finds possible qualities for an assortment of critical grain highlights by looking at the connection between the aggregate and the marker type (like SNPs). At the point when geneticists decide to lead GWAS, there are various elements and ideas to remember. A few GWAS systems and a concise manual for assessing GWAS information are shrouded in this paper. This survey focuses on grain, a harvest that has gone through significant hereditary improvement as a result of the ID of various supportive QTLs and qualities through the use of GWAS in marker-helped determination. This survey frames the as of late connected with strategy for hereditary investigation (affiliation planning or linkage planning), next it presents the principal factual and hereditary thoughts of GWAS and last it features the hereditary choice made conceivable by GWAS. The audit portrayed how bleeding edge bioinformatics procedures can be utilized to perceive the up-and-comer quality or qualities.

Literature Review

All inclusive affiliation study (GWAS)

GWAS-based affiliation investigation is an intense strategy that is used successfully and proficiently for the acknowledgment of contributory loci/ qualities and genome-aggregate connections. Computing the connection between’s every marker and an aggregate of worry that has been scored across inconsequential lines/people that is, remotely related and heterogeneous people of a shifted assortment is the fundamental course of far reaching affiliation studies [1]. With the help of at present accessible enormous populaces and high-throughput sequencing innovation, the strength and outcome of GWAS in the analyzation of complicated qualities in crops, including grain, had been illustrated. It was unsurprising that GWAS would turn out to be more effective in finding the contributory locus/gene(s) for quantitative qualities.

High-goal planning can likewise be perceived to verifiable recombination occasions and the more noteworthy allele numbers that are coordinated in GWAS. In the affiliation planning populaces, verifiable recombination that amassed over ages with authentic Linkage Disequilibrium (LD, north of handfuls/many ages) continue among the agent promotions and worked on the goal for affiliation examination through the fast rot of LD. A set number of recombination occasions, in contrast to affiliation planning populaces, will normally result in family-based populaces particularly DH populaces with moderately low planning goal and a wide recombination an incentive for a couple of loci, prompting a bigger linkage block that raises LD.

The utilization of cutting edge insightful methods has started to expand the helpfulness of different hereditary assets for investigating the regular assortment that may ultimately be applied to upgrade the harvest. Since the turn of the hundred years, this system has been completely examined in people and has likewise been seen in plants. The methodology was first applied to an assortment of plant populaces, including Arabidopsis and a fluctuated populace of maize (Zea mays L.). In this manner, the methodology was applied to different yields and the quantity of distributed reports developed. This approach started with grain a decade prior. GWAS has arisen as an essential technique for planning quantitative characteristics and exploring regular distinction as of late [2]. Enough marker thickness is given by GWAS high-thickness genotyping advancements to inspect the hereditary engineering of grain elements of concern. By using broad and changed datasets with an adequate number of hereditary markers, GWAS can distinguish the contributory loci that underlie unconstrained phenotypic contrast. One of the imperative peculiarities that are firmly connected to versatility and yield is the normal contrast of stage change, especially heading date. Acquiring a thoughtful of the regular variety of other development qualities, such leaf region, plant level, tillering, grain number or other development and yield related characteristics, requires a comprehension of the normal change of heading date. Finding the hereditary engineering of a quality as well as finding the contributory factors for a particular characteristic is the essential objectives of doing vast affiliation studies (GWAS). Various characteristics have various quantities of loci basically their phenotypic distinction; for instance, a quality might have a complex hereditary design constrained by numerous loci (polygenetic attributes, such as heading date) or a straightforward hereditary engineering with not many huge impact loci (like grain spot smear) [3].

How GWAS works

The most important phase in directing a GWAS try is to pick the review populace, considering its size (least of 100 people). It is liked to expand the quantity of people however much as could reasonably be expected to stay away from Beavis impacts, which can prompt a critical misjudgment of phenotypic fluctuation when the example size is little, like 100 [4]. From that point forward, there are three urgent moves toward doing a fruitful GWAS examination (Figure 1). The initial step is phenotyping, where all genotypes ought to be phenotyped for a particular quality or set of qualities relying upon the review's objectives. Finding genotype-aggregate connections relies intensely upon precise phenotyping. Continuing phenotyping across replications, areas or potentially years is suggested. Subsequent to eliminating the anomalies, the wide sense heritability ought to be assessed for the crude information considering the G X E collaboration and these parts [5].

Figure 1) The main vital three steps for conducting a successful GWAS research

A characteristic with a high heritability file is for the most part represented by hereditary qualities, which is crucial for finding relationship signals. The mean or BLUP, can then be assessed utilizing the phenotypic information. The assessment of genotypic qualities is generally finished as fixed impacts (i.e., BLUE) using blended models, which have been effectively applied in grain because of the exceptionally lopsided phenotypic information in the plants. The genotyping in Sync II calls for utilizing a similar gathering phenotyped. GBS is the most broadly utilized genotyping method since it delivers an enormous number of minimal expense SNP markers across the genome of yields (like wheat, grain and so forth) (Figure 1) [6].

Separating the GBS-produced SNPs as per minor allele recurrence, heterozygosity and it is prescribed to miss information. To pick the best GWAS model, populace construction ought to be inspected before to doing GWAS. Measurable models that are oftentimes recommended for GWAS execution incorporate the blended direct model (MLM) and general straight model (GLM) (Figure 1). The related populace structure isn't thought about by the GLM. Consequently, GLM was applied to populaces that coming up short on populace structure tracked down in rice [7].

Conversely, the MLM coordinate the populace structure into its model (PCAs+Q grid+family relationship or connection). After the GWAS model was picked, the phenotypic and genotypic information are at last consolidated utilizing the legitimate programming (like decoration) to recognize alleles connected to a specific trademark (Step III). It is emphatically encouraged to perform phenotyping prior to genotyping, especially for populaces with next to no past information. For example, assume a populace of 400 genotypes was collected from different spots and the objective was to assess them in a specific setting. Unfortunate transformation to the phenotyping climate may result in the deficiency of a few genotypes. In this manner, testing the phenotypic variety of that populace initially can set aside time and cash (for genotyping). The meaning of marker-attribute related (passing the edge e.g., -log10 p-esteem 3) not entirely set in stone by the bogus Disclosure Rate (FDR) or Bonferroni adjustment (BC), which is characterized as numerous examinations that can be fit to test the meaning of many thousands to millions of markers in GWAS. The BC strategy is broadly utilized, for example characterize the limit of critical markers for numerous qualities at the same time [8].

One more test that assesses the extent of genuine results among those critical is the misleading disclosure rate (FDR). To play out this test, the pupsides of all markers created from GWAS are arranged in climbing request and every p-esteem at every locus is given a position (R-e.g., 1, 2, 3, …., 100,000). FDR is determined freely for every characteristic, it is especially helpful for breaking down the hereditary elements administering development and development and yield related qualities in crop plants. The p-esteem (FDR) is more factor and fluctuates concurring on the markers and qualities than the decent p-esteem (BC) for all attributes. It is accordingly encouraged to use FDR as opposed to BC in crop plant affiliation concentrates on to independently find the exceptionally connected markers for each property. FDR is additionally less moderate than BC. The affiliation is valid and the marker is connected to the characteristic in the two tests and at every locus if the p-worth of FDR or BC is not exactly or equivalent to the p-worth of the marker created by GWAS. At the importance levels of 0.01 and 0.05, the marker-characteristic relationship can be inspected [9]. Be that as it may, on the grounds that FDR can distinguish critical markers with little impacts, some affiliation examination concentrates on utilized it to assess the marker-characteristic association at the 20% importance level [10]. The review that decides the importance level for marker-quality relationship in GWAS might use low FDR to recognize up-and-comer loci/gene(s) for extra hereditary and subatomic examinations or high FDR to dissect the whole image of a characteristic's hereditary design [11].

Programming for performing GWAS (Decoration, GenStat, PLINK and R (GAPIT))

Various measurable programming devices can be utilized for GWAS (Step III: Figure 1). In this part the audit focused on the most huge and broadly utilized affiliation examination programming programs. With regards to GWAS in plants, Tuft (Quality Examination by Affiliation, Development and Linkage) is by and large utilized programming. It has various powerful factual strategies, like GLM and MLM, for executing GWAS. Tuft can utilize PCA and connection examination to look at the populace structure. LD is likewise a piece of Tuft. In affiliation examination, the product is constantly used in grain, for instance Tuft 5.0, the most recent variant, can perform SNP calling from GBS information and study hereditary variety. It's intriguing to take note of that the product has a plenty of perception instruments that can be utilized to show information, including phenotypic difference made sense of by markers (R2), a phylogenetic tree utilizing archaeoptery, a Manhattan plot for GWAS results, a dissipate plot of PCA and LD. Moreover, the refreshed form has a few supportive information outlines that provide scientists with a quick outline of genotypes, markers, heterozygotes, missing information and the quantity of markers on every chromosome. Any sort of DNA marker, like SNP, SSR, AFLP, RAPD and so on, can be utilized with more seasoned adaptations of Decoration, for example, Tuft v.2.1. Just SNP markers are acknowledged by the Tuft v.5.0. You can acquire Tuft for nothing at http://www.maizegenetics.net/ decoration. Utilizing bi-allelic and multi-allelic markers, GenStat for Windows Release is measurable programming that can complete markercharacteristic affiliation examination in a hereditarily fluctuated populace. To oversee hereditary relatedness utilizing PCA or Family relationship, GWAS can be performed utilizing either GLM or MLM models with populace structure amendment utilizing GenStat. It is feasible to indicate the-log 10(p) importance edge at which Bonferroni can be picked. It's fascinating to take note of that GenStat programming computes and shows LD rot as well as considers the estimation of every SNP's impact on a characteristic.

Deciding the quantity of markers required for GWAS requires thought of LD rot.

PLINK permits the investigation of a huge dataset of aggregates and genotypes. It gives numerous qualities and highlights of which, PLINK performs examinations for populace delineation location, essential affiliation tests, meta-investigations and a few different tests, for example, quality based tests for various characteristics. As a result, GenStat has been broadly used to recognize contributory allele(s)/loci in grain of which had been cloned (Table 1). It is feasible to give realistic portrayals to the Manhattan plot, Q plot and multi-layered scaling (for populace structure). Additionally, PLINK-delivered tables showing the results of GWAS and LD among SNP markers are accessible. Late improvements in the free R factual climate have delivered various supportive projects for doing GWAS. GWAS and genomic choice can be done with the assistance of the supportive R program genome affiliation and forecast coordinated apparatus (GAPIT).

TABLE 1 Candidate-gene based GWAS which has been validated and cloned

As per Lipka et al., GAPIT's essential advantages incorporate its ability to deal with enormous measures of information, including genotypes and SNPs and its capacity to abbreviate calculation times without forfeiting factual power. Various factual procedures, including MLM, populace not entirely set in stone (P3D) and proficient blended model affiliation (EMMA), are remembered for the bundle. Manhattan plots, quantile (QQ) plots and a table with the p-esteem, minor allele recurrence, test size, phenotypic distinction made sense of by markers R2 and changed P-esteem after a misleading revelation rate can be generally used to envision the results of GWAS. Family relationship results are moreover shown as a table and an intensity map. In addition, diagrams with shifting levels of pressure can give likelihood capabilities and heritability gauges. Attributable to the recently shown qualities, GAPIT arises as the most strong and helpful instrument for affiliation examination in grain or different oats like wheat. There is a reasonable pattern toward the utilization of GenStat for competitor quality and QTL acknowledgment since it was among the main programming bundles to play out these examinations and has various elements not tracked down in different bundles. For example, GenStat takes into consideration the investigation of phenotypic and genotypic information, the estimation of BLUE qualities, the estimation of LD, the computation of populace structure with PCA and connection and the utilization of either GLM or MLM to GWAS. The outcome incorporates the significant plots as a whole and data about the marker-quality affiliations, for example, the impact worth of the marker on the characteristic notwithstanding GxE cooperation. In conclusion, the approval of huge affiliations should be possible by Bonferroni revision. In other programming/bundles, much of the time each step.

Discussion

The aftere ffect of GWAS

The outcome finding for GWAS are furnished by every product bundle with to some degree shifted boundaries. One valuable device for creating many boundaries to help with breaking down the hereditary underpinning of a specific quality is the Tuft programming. These boundaries incorporate the allele impacts of the huge SNP (expanded or diminished the characteristic), the p-worth of every SNP, which is essential to deciding the importance with the quality and R2 (phenotypic contrast made sense of by marker), which lays out whether the critical SNP is a minor or major QTL. The essential result is shown in the Manhattan plot, which shows the Pupsides of each and every marker utilized in GWAS on a genomic scale. The x-hub shows the log10 of every marker's P-esteem (i.e., the quantity of zeros after the decimal point in addition to one), while the x-hub shows the genomic request by chromosome and position on the chromosome.

On the Manhattan plot, the comparing critical SNP (most minimal huge pvalues), which addresses QTL, commonly shows up as serious areas of strength for a (Figure 2A). It is feasible to set the -log10 (p-esteem) limit at a certainty esteem; -log10 >3 is the most ordinary and dependable worth (Figure 2A). Monotonous correlation examination can be utilized to change the edge and work on the heartiness and dependability of the SNP p-esteem (Figure 2A). The QQ plot, which shows the connection between the noticed and expected p-values, is another vital GWAS chart. It shows how every SNP's noticed P-esteem veers off from the invalid speculation. For instance, MLM can be used in contrast with GLM or CMLM models (Figure 2B). In Figure 2B, the corner to corner or standard line (red) demonstrates whether the focuses are precisely coordinated or separate, mirroring the conveyance. The hazy situation shows the qualities' 95% certainty span. Since most of the data of interest in the QQ plot are irrelevant to the component, it is normal that they will generally lie on the corner to corner line. Then again, the takeoffs from this line infer that the populace structure isn't sufficiently constrained by the model, which might prompt mistaken connections.

Figure 2) a) Manhattan plot and b) Quantile-Quantile (QQ) plot of diverse GWAS models

Three essential QQ plots are practical, each with an unmistakable significance:

• All focuses (noticed versus anticipated p-values) are very near or on the inclining line and inside the certainty span, the dark featured locale (Figure 2). The noticed qualities match the normal qualities.
• As per Figure 2B, the huge SNPs (noticed p-esteems that go amiss enormously and altogether from expected p-values under the invalid speculation) travel toward the y-hub.
• Early point division or an uncertain pattern demonstrates that the populace design might not have been tended to or that the phenotypic information might be of lower quality, which could affect the results.

In this case, extra factors, (for example, populace structure adjustment and phenotypic information revision) are essential on the grounds that most of the profoundly strayed SNPs are displayed as misdirecting affiliations (Figure 2B). In spite of the fact that it is improbable that GWAS will represent all of the heritable contrast in complex qualities, it can represent a sizable measure of it. It is difficult to find exceptionally unassuming impacts by normal alleles or minor impacts by intriguing variations because of their troubles.

GWAS as a driver of quality disclosure in grain

With a high throughput SNP stage and GWAS, grain specialists have made progress in finding the loci/qualities liable for allelic contrast and phenotypic difference of complicated qualities, giving sufficient marker thickness to cover the entire genome. Various examinations have shown the adequacy of affiliation populace planning in pinpointing putative qualities administering the ideal elements (Figure 3). Also, we will show here how powerful GWAS is in finding the allelic distinction that has been practically approved (Table 2). The primary quality in grain to be distinguished by GWAS and consequently cloned is called ANTHOCYANINLESS 2 (ANT2) [12]. The upstream erasure of an early stop codon in the ANT2 putative essential helix-circle helixprotein1 (HvbHLH1) quality was uncovered by re-sequencing, which out-comed without even a trace of anthocyanin in the inspected planning populace. INTERMEDIUM-C (INTC) parallel is an extra delineation. It was distinguished by GWAS and is an ortholog of the maize taming quality TEOSINTE Fanned 1 (TB1) [13]. The areas of the 17 free int-c freak alleles are shown by the regular allelic variety at this locus, which is vital for fathoming the essential cycles of spikelet advancement and the hereditary underpinnings of harvest taming. As indicated by Lipka et al., GWAS has likewise distinguished HvAPETALA2 (HvAP2/Cly1), which is connected to the hereditary underpinning of normal contrast in spike thickness related factors in spring grain. In a 401 two-paddled UK spring grain populace, the GWAS was used in a similar report to distinguish the ZEOCRITON alleles connected to the qualities being scrutinized. Cloning grain CENTRORADIALIS (HvCEN/eps2) was made conceivable by the 9K iSelect IlluminaTM SNP innovation, which offered a high GWAS map goal and advanced grain's spring developing propensity and ecological adaption. The genomic region of the salt resilience quality HKT1; 5 was recognized in grain by a GWAS and its approval was accomplished by re-sequencing the quality that oversees the dissemination of Na + in the shoots and its dumping to the xylem [14].

Figure 3) Key genes distributed over barley chromosomes, which are involved in growth and yield related traits

TABLE 2 The key genomic regions with QT in barley using a GWAS approach

QTL and allelic distinction recognized utilizing a GWAS

The PSEUDO-reaction controller (HvPRR37)/PHOTOPERIOD reaction LOCUS1 (Ppd-H1) quality and the six-paddled spike 2 (VRS2) quality are two significant hereditary distinction markers for grain establishes that can be concentrated on utilizing GWAS. The review found that in European winter grain, allelic contrast at marker 22 of Ppd-H1 managed the time of cell multiplication and leaf development, subsequently impacting leaf size. Furthermore, GWAS showed that other development elements and variations, such bigger leaf region and more turners, were improved by regular choice of versatile advancement for late heading in European promotions, which thus upgraded grain result.

Novel loci/QTL of normal distinction in grain populaces and marker types has been tracked down utilizing GWAS. For instance, QTL for tillering, plant level, leaf region, seedling design, stage progress and development Steps were found in the Genobar overall spring grain assortment. Extra data on the transformative science basic the versatile characteristics of grain were gotten through normal contrast examination in a NAM populace. Besides, GWAS has been used to recognize salt and dry season pressure resilience alleles/loci in different shifted grain populaces, adding to how we might interpret the hereditary components of biotic and abiotic stress in grain. Moreover, research has investigated the hereditary part behind physiological attributes, development and yield related characteristics that are dry spell lenient and protection from stripe rust, Fusarium, the net type of net smear and stem rust.

Forecast of qualities in grain

Utilizing noticed crop qualities and family information, raisers utilize laid out strategies to choose and figure helpful descendants [15]. As a result, countless trial half and halves should be assessed by raisers in the field, frequently in overabundance of what rearing projects can deal with. To get around this issue, hypotheses and procedures for assessing the genotypic worth of contrast s that are not genuinely imaginable have been laid out. The forecast of untested half breeds can be settled through genomic determination [16]. Huge scope sub-atomic hereditary information and strategies that are at present utilized in crop reproducing were made conceivable by the improvement of atomic hereditary qualities [17].

Genomic determination

Utilizing noticed crop qualities and family information, raisers utilize laid out strategies to choose and figure helpful descendants [18]. As a result, countless trial half and halves should be assessed by raisers in the field, frequently in overabundance of what rearing projects can deal with. To get around this issue, hypotheses and procedures for assessing the genotypic worth of contrast s that are not genuinely imaginable have been laid out. The forecast of untested half breeds can be settled through genomic determination. Huge scope sub-atomic hereditary information and strategies that are at present utilized in crop reproducing were made conceivable by the improvement of atomic hereditary qualities. Reproducers can utilize marker helped choice (MAS) to choose for better and contagious elements thanks than these sub-atomic markers. Since most horticultural characteristics are managed by an enormous number of minor qualities, genomic determination gives a viable method of expectation for complex attributes represented by QTL with unobtrusive impacts utilizing genome wide markers with aggregate [19]. Despite importance or association with QTL, all suitable markers are utilized in genomic choice, which is MAS without QTL planning. Preparing is a typical move toward the hereditary choice cycle.

The reproducing populace is utilized to make a preparation populace, which is then examined for phenotypic information. Similar expansive markers are genotyped in 25 individuals from the rearing and preparing populaces. Genomic Assessed Rearing Qualities (GEBVs) are assessed and models are prepared utilizing the genotypic and phenotypic information. The assessments of the GEBVs are utilized to pick unrivaled lines. In genomic determination, more vast markers are utilized than aggregates, which present an issue with deficient levels of opportunity prompting multico linearity and over-fitting of the model [20]. Since utilizing standard procedures like least squares would create off base results, improved methods are utilized. To forestall inclination and overextending of the marker impacts, GS forecast models integrate information from every one of the markers (Figure 4).

Figure 4) Overall GWAS procedure

Conclusion

Normal distinction in grain, a model yield for grain oats, has been enormously grasped as of late. With the advancement of high-throughput SNP genotyping and the surprising assortment of hereditary assets at the quality bank, for example, IPK, GWAS in grain will before long be more useful. The results of the GWAS can be applied and used in various settings, including hereditary planning, reproducing, up-and-comer quality exploration and quality altering.

Exceptionally exact phenotyping by specialists or high-throughput phenotyping stages will likewise expand the force of GWAS in recognizing novel loci. Such advances give assets that improve and work with reproducing, genomic and hereditary examination of significant development and yield related characteristics in crops. Contrasted with biparental QTL planning, GWAS offers a higher goal and a more extensive hereditary premise, making it fundamental for genomics-helped crop reproducing. It tends to be applied to the hereditary and atomic approval of relationship as well as the determination of genuine isolating guardians for rearing tasks. Moreover, GWAS can help with the comprehension of marker-helped choice and reproducing program fluctuation in grain. Allelic contrast in the affiliation planning populace can be utilized to distinguish useful loci/qualities that underlie hereditary distinction in complex factors like biotic pressure resilience, illness opposition and yield. Quality articulation and altering can be accomplished by the assessment of these alleles. For atomic investigations and yield upgrade, omics and hereditary qualities should be coordinated.

Over the most recent twenty years genomic determination has shown its true capacity in plant rearing examination by expanding hereditary additions. Upheaval as far as less expensive NGS innovations has made it conceivable to succession the yield genomes for a moderately minimal price. It results in various totally sequenced harvest and creature genomes with high-thickness SNP genotyping chips and their accessibility in the public space, which might additionally help the prescient capacity of a GS model. Predictable refreshing of the preparation set for GS is profoundly attractive by remembering the new markers for every age. Assessment of the preparation populaces ought to be finished in controlled and all around oversaw conditions as it fundamentally influences the exhibition of expectation models. There is a requirement for an organized program in the field of genomic choice including human asset improvement, high level information recording techniques and characteristic phenotyping to emerge with productive results.

At long last, regardless of sub-atomic and hereditary approvals are the dependable ways of approving the GWAS results, there are as yet going with moves need to think about, for example, epistasis, heterocyst and natural elements. When such factors are gathered, it will work on our possibility figuring out the hereditary boundary of perplexing attributes and give feasible focuses to trim improvement and rearing.

References

1. Al-Abdallat AM, Karadsheh A, Hadadd NI, et al. Assessment of genetic diversity and yield performance in Jordanian barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) landraces grown under rain fed conditions. BMC Plant Biol. 2017;17:1-3.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

2. Alqudah AM, Sharma R, Pasam RK, et al. Genetic dissection of photoperiod response based on GWAS of pre-anthesis phase duration in spring barley. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e113120.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

3. Bandillo N, Raghavan C, Muyco PA, et al. Multi-parent Advanced Generation Inter-Cross (MAGIC) populations in rice: Progress and potential for genetics research and breeding. Rice. 2013;6:1-5.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Bykova IV, Lashina NM, Efimov VM, et al. Identification of 50 K Illumina-chip SNPs associated with resistance to spot blotch in barley. BMC Plant Biol. 2017;17:95-103.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

5. Fan Y, Zhou G, Shabala S, et al. Genome-wide association study reveals a new QTL for salinity tolerance in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:946.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

6. Flint-Garcia SA, Thornsberry JM, Buckler IV ES. Structure of linkage disequilibrium in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2003;54(1):357-374.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

7. Hazzouri KM, Khraiwesh B, Amiri KM, et al. Mapping of HKT1; 5 gene in barley using GWAS approach and its implication in salt tolerance mechanism. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:156.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

8. Huang X, Han B. Natural variations and genome-wide association studies in crop plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2014;65(1):531-551.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

9. Alqudah AM, Sallam A, Baenziger PS, et al. GWAS: Fast-forwarding gene identification and characterization in temperate cereals: Lessons from barley a review. J Adv Res. 2020;22:119-135.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

10. Liller CB, Walla A, Boer MP, et al. Fine mapping of a major QTL for awn length in barley using a multiparent mapping population. Theor Appl Genet. 2017;130:269-281.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

11. Lipka AE, Tian F, Wang Q, et al. GAPIT: Genome association and prediction integrated tool. Bioinform. 2012;28(18):2397-2399.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

12. Liu H, Bayer M, Druka A, et al. An evaluation of genotyping by sequencing (GBS) to map the Breviaristatum-e (ari-e) locus in cultivated barley. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:1-1.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

13. Maurer A, Draba V, Pillen K. Genomic dissection of plant development and its impact on thousand grain weight in barley through nested association mapping. J Exp Bot. 2016;67(8):2507-2518.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

14. Mitchell-Olds T, Willis JH, Goldstein DB. Which evolutionary processes influence natural genetic variation for phenotypic traits?. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8(11):845-856.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

15. Mitchell-Olds T. Complex-trait analysis in plants. Genome Biol. 2010;11:1-3.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

16. Nagel M, Alqudah AM, Bailly M, et al. Novel loci and a role for nitric oxide for seed dormancy and preharvest sprouting in barley. Plant Cell Environ. 2019;42(4):1318-1327.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

17. Nordborg M, Borevitz JO, Bergelson J, et al. The extent of linkage disequilibrium in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat Genet. 2002;30(2):190-193.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

18. Piepho HP, Mohring J, Melchinger AE, et al. BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica. 2008;161(1):209-228.

    [Google Scholar]

19. Renteria ME, Cortes A, Medland SE. Using PLINK for Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and data analysis. Methods Mol Biol. 2013:193-213.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

20. Rollins JA, Drosse B, Mulki MA, et al. Variation at the vernalisation genes Vrn-H1 and Vrn-H2 determines growth and yield stability in barley (Hordeum vulgare) grown under dryland conditions in Syria. Theor Appl Genet. 2013;126:2803-2824.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]