**5. Advantages of genomic selection**

**1.** The marker effects are calculable from the training population and used directly for GS within the involved breeding population, and QTL discovery, mapping, etc., are not needed.

**2.** Each simulation and empirical studies reveal that GS produces larger gains per unit time than constitution selection. For instance, a simulation study in maize showed GS to be superior to MARS, notably for traits having low heritability. Further, GS will predict the performance of breeding lines additional accurately than that supported pedigree data, and GS appears to be an efficient tool for rising the potency of rice breeding.

**6. Limitations of genomic selection**

are not reduced.

as well as varieties.

accuracy.

**1.** GS has still not become popular plant breeding community primarily due to low evidence for its sensible utility. In fact, most discussions on its utility are for the most part statistical

The Usage of Genomic Selection Strategy in Plant Breeding

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.76247

105

**2.** The potential value of GS should be assessed with caution because GS has been mostly evaluated in simulation studies. There is an imperative have to be compelled to judge

**3.** The marker effects and, as a result, GEBV estimates would possibly modification attributable to changes in gene frequencies and epistatic interactions. This is often ready to necessitate amendment of the GS model with every breeding cycle therefore the gains from GS

**4.** The accuracy of GEBV estimates has been evaluated exploitation simulation models based on additive genetic variance. These models ignore epistatic effects that does not seem to be realistic. It has been argued that since biological process makes alone a small contribution to the breeding value, the employment of solely additive genetic models for GS is additionally expected to maximize selection gains. However, this argument are planning to be entirely valid only for self-fertilizing species, where homozygous lines are used as parents

**5.** Our information concerning the genetic design of quantitative traits is severely restricted, that limits our ability to develop applicable models of GS to realize the most prediction

**6.** The selection response declines at a faster rate under GS than with pedigree selection. This may be reduced by continually together with new markers for the prediction of GE-BVs. The long response under GS can also be raised by putting higher weights on the low-frequency favorable alleles, considerably within the start of GS program.GS is simpler than phenotypic selection on per unit time basis only if off-season/greenhouse facilities are accustomed grow up to three generations per annum. The utility and also the cost-

**7.** The necessity for genotyping of an oversized variety of marker loci in every generation of selection adds considerably to the price of breeding programs. It has been projected that, inside the future, a bigger stress are going to be placed on the use of marker information than on composition information. Such a shift, however, would need the value of one

**8.** Implementation of GS would need intensive infrastructure and completely different resources, which might get on the so much aspect the reach of most moderate size public sector breeding programs, considerably within the developing countries. To boot, planning and execution of GS is kind of exigent, and additionally the breeders would be required to

effectiveness of GS would be uncertain wherever such facilities are not offered.

marker information to be merely 1/5000 the price of phenotyping one entry.

reorient their approach to the breeding programs.

treatments and simulations that are not simply appreciated by plant breeders.

genomic selection in crop breeding situations to demonstrate its practical utility.

