I feel, highly focused conventional breeding methods give better target results than a MAS exercise with all the cost:benefit worked out. Maybe, there would be a time loss in conventional breeding, but we end up in a highly adapted concrete product, even though this point may be debatable. In that, MAS can give better results. But looking at an average plant breeder's lack of laboratory, money, skill etc type of resources, will it not be prudent to slog rather than be protocol driven? The practical learning that conventional breeding gives is unparalleled. Of late, there has been a significant shift of even conventional breeders to some molecular breeding aspects. Good, if the target is well defined and the work plan gives a better result. But again, look at the voluminous data being produced and published in the molecular breeding field as against conventional breeding, and it now longer has remained a level playing field. Journals are also attracted towards molecular breeding papers. Where are we heading?
Hello,
I believe that MAS is having a great impact in plant breeding.
This technology is continously improving and the more people are working with, the more prices are going down, making less expensive and more accessible to many laboratories. I am personally working with MAS in stone fruits and I have to say that the reliability of the method makes me wonder how this technology will further be improved in the next 5-10 years.
Genetic mapping is becoming much more practical not for elite research centre but for smaller laboratories too and, most importantly, the repetition of such research is becoming cheaper and reliable. Thus, I think that such analysis may be, more than compared to traditional breeding, integrated.
MAS might be used for valuable traits which are interesting and difficult to obtain with traditional breeding methods, while traditional breeding could be used for monitoring the maintenance of certain traits.
Here are some useful links:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2014.00484/full#h6
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00122-018-3266-4#Sec16
Best regards
Sir,
MAS is evolving rapidly and the publications are enormous. The major problem is that we conventional plant breeders are still trying to adapt to this technology. Still inter-disciplinary collaborations are far too away in developing countries.
In my opinion, the importance of conventional breeding is downgraded nowadays, especially by major publishers. It's definitely a worrying factor but we need to utilize the MAS and take it's full advantage. The main pillar must always be crossing in the field and evaluation.
Hi Francesco Desiderio , I agree MAS is important. Well, there could be some species where it might have made some impact. But my 20 years of experience in cotton has not brought to my notice any significant addition to products based on MAS. On the other hand, I have come out with improved varieties conventionally. Hence the comparison. I did say that MAS is a TOOL and Conventional breeding is a WAY OF LIFE !! Focused and strategic use of MAS leading to finished products is still progressing. God speed.
Hi Nirmal Raj Rajendran , you are right. What we see in the field is more dependable than what we are trying to engineer in the laboratory. A resource rich institute can always adopt such costly interventions (like MAS etc). The reason why, I keep advising my students to explore advanced learning centres and work on fellowships.
When introduce new genes from non-adapted germplasm, MAS will be very efficient combing with back-cross strategy.
Zhanwang Zhu Hi, No doubt in that MAS is successful in some specific cases where the trait is governed by a very few major genes. But the disadvantage is, the benefit cost ratio as compared to a slow but steady conventional approach where we are more guaranteed of an improved product.
Yes, you are right. With targeted genes and good markers available, MAS is successfully used in disease-resistance and end-use quality improvement in wheat.
Dear dr Rajesh S Patil I understand your comment. I agree with dr Nirmal Raj Rajendran when he mention that the MAS is still in the "adapting" phase. However I have to mention that cost-benefit might be there. Indeed, conventional breeding is a life style, but I can certainly say that adaptation to new tools has improved the quality of breeding. The main drowback is the initial investment, the set up phase, but after that it might be possible to analyse more samples and have less mistakes.
One of the problem that I presonally find with MAS, and I have to agree with dr. Rajesh is the way of life change. With MAS, it might be not necessary anymore the figure of an "field agronomist", but the technology and the instruments value much more the figure of a "laboratory agronomist" since most of the analysis is made around the genetics of the plant.
It might be interesting to find a way to merge such different figures in one. I see already in plant pathology, where it is possible to obtain data almost immediately in the field with the use of ELISA kit and testing in the field the presence of certain pathogens. This is a good example, I think, of development of more traditional figure into the new millennia, where we are going to have easier access to certain technology and use more often informatic tools.
Here are some link:
https://books.google.hu/books?hl=it&lr=&id=11ssEVh-ydoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA203&dq=Marker+assisted+selection+vs+conventional+breeding&ots=Du52or6xCM&sig=FrZ5ODg2GmLgz1C1X5CT3KCvInQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Marker%20assisted%20selection%20vs%20conventional%20breeding&f=false
Article Money matters (II): Costs of maize inbred line conversion sc...
Article Development of SCAR Marker Linked to a Major QTL for High Fi...
Article Fiber Quality Improvement in Upland Cotton (Gossypium hirsut...
Best regards
Francesco Desiderio Hi. Thanks for following up with extra inputs and the papers on cotton. Another thing with a MAS program is that it is MOSTLY not taken to its logical conclusion. Reasons are many, of which, proper phenotyping is not done. Conventional breeding is a back breaking job which demands constant alacrity and physical endurance under the sun when one is doing selection. Unless the selection is good, the plant/genotype will not perform in the long run. Obviously phenotyping slackens and will not match the protocol driven molecular tools. A conventional breeder with lot of experience and COMMITMENT can plan to do MAS with a dedicated lab team. But again, he is the kingpin who should take it to its logical conclusion.
Dear Patil
In addition to what has been said with others and especially to that of Francesco Desiderio, I strongly agree that MAS should be one of the most important strategies to work with, in order to improve crop productivity and production. Although it needs laboratories and supplies, which might be expensive and not available in some countries, it will have greater impact in crop improvement. In the future, due to expansion in Biotech industries, I think the prices of supplies will be low and many countries will have access. We can also see the difference between MAS and Conventional breeding from the following article, just an example.
Edgerton, M. 2009. “Increasing Crop Productivity to Meet Global Needs for Feed, Food, and Fuel.” Plant Physiology 149: 7–13.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19126690
Dear Bekele Abebie ,
You are right. No doubts about MAS being important. Just that in some crops there is better exchange of information and in some it is not. The commercial aspects do come in. Hope such inequalities will get ironed out soon and the world research on crops will prosper.
Please have a look at the following links. Hope these may be helpful. https://juniperpublishers.com/artoaj/pdf/ARTOAJ.MS.ID.555914
https://www.botanylibrary.com/plant-breeding-2/breeding-methods/marker-assisted-selection/marker-assisted-selection-meaning-features-crop-improvement-botany/14134
Hi Shaistul Islam , Thanks for the links.
Juniper journals are not NAAS rated. Please ask them to enlist so that Agricultural students and researchers can publish.
Can you give your specific views on the discussion, please?
Dear Dr. Rajesh S Patil,
Thank you for adding me in this discussion. I think conventional breeding is more inclusive in case of resource and environment adaptability. Even if conventional breeding is time consuming, it is reliable if it is done with patience. But MAS needs advance laboratory and it will not available for all researchers.
Kind regards,
You are exactly right Assaye Berie . From start to finish of a breeding exercise leading to a product, it is conventional breeding which can deliver a more stable desired product. MAS can be selectively used as a tool.
Hi Rajesh,
First of all, what would be your product in conventional breeding? If you are focusing only on feeling assumptions and have a lot of time, go with conventional strategies. Now technology has been improved a lot and you should go with SNP based marker-assisted selection and you can do it in better and quick ways. Also, you will get high impact publications with technology.
Hi Anuj Kumar , Thanks for the inputs. Of late I am using molecular tools enroute using MAS in cotton improvement. There is no doubt that in some crops, progress through MAS is fast. In cotton we have not seen such instances. Probably, we are not even half way through. On the contrary, over a longish period of time, say 10-12 years we are reaping the benefits of conventionally bred varieties and hybrids. In my case , I hit a goldmine this year with the recommendation of 7 of my genotypes being recommended for release at the national level. The robustness of conventional breeding can never be undermined. Phenotyping is still the back bone of plant breeding. Molecular means can however, remain as tools to aid crop improvement. About the high impact publications, that's where the grouse remains.
Going through the answers, I believe there will always be a see-saw effect here also as in most topics of life, today. Some of us (50+ old) are in the midst of such a flux. Youngsters will definitely see the results of their MAS exercises unless they become fascinated with another technique and digress. I have been seeing this over the past 20 years. As an insurance, begin a targeted conventional breeding exercise along with the other new techniques you are following. I can assure an end product that you will be proud of.
The see-saw effect may due to the different perspectives. Still the foundation for breeding and qtl mining is based on robust phenotyping. Success and durability of any crop depends on the experience of a breeder.
True Das sir. But the comparison is necessary to go ahead with a plan of action. New breeders do require experiences like this.
I agree with T.R. Das we should combine the two in our breeding programs.
I prefer conventional breeding because it is stable, environmental friendly and need less resources, however it takes longer time to get the target trait/s. The problem is that users may need this target products urgently. So If your target users are not demanding the products urgently, conventional method can prefer, otherwise it can be a mandatory to use MAS and similar technologies.
I agree with T.R. Das we should combine the two in our breeding programs.
Abebaw Dessie Mabreja and Dhyaa Jwher , yes. We should decide on the priorities, abilities, funding and need in a crop to go about using these methods. A multi pronged approach is preferable.
Conventional techniques are more laborious,
Marker assisted Selection is good so long as
1.Gene is codominant
2.laborious phenotypes identification in conventional breeding
3.available QTL, markers ,SNP
Hope ICAR dose same
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture
- Horticulture
- Seeds