Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32117371›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2020

Exploring Deep Learning for Complex Trait Genomic Prediction in Polyploid Outcrossing Species.

Laura M Zingaretti, Salvador Alejandro Gezan, Luis Felipe V Ferrão, Luis F Osorio, Amparo Monfort, Patricio R Muñoz, Vance M Whitaker, Miguel Pérez-Enciso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Harnessing artificial intelligence in plant breeding: innovations in digital phenotyping and breeding methodologies.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Omics Technologies in Molecular Biology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Laura M ZingarettiCentre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG) CSIC-IRTA-UAB-UB, Campus UAB, Barcelona, Spain.
Salvador Alejandro GezanSchool of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Luis Felipe V FerrãoBlueberry Breeding and Genomics Lab, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Luis F OsorioIFAS Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Wimauma, FL, United States.
Amparo MonfortCentre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG) CSIC-IRTA-UAB-UB, Campus UAB, Barcelona, Spain.
Patricio R MuñozBlueberry Breeding and Genomics Lab, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Vance M WhitakerIFAS Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Wimauma, FL, United States.
Miguel Pérez-EncisoCentre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG) CSIC-IRTA-UAB-UB, Campus UAB, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic prediction (GP) is the procedure whereby the genetic merits of untested candidates are predicted using genome wide marker information. Although numerous examples of GP exist in plants and animals, applications to polyploid organisms are still scarce, partly due to limited genome resources and the complexity of this system. Deep learning (DL) techniques comprise a heterogeneous collection of machine learning algorithms that have excelled at many prediction tasks. A potential advantage of DL for GP over standard linear model methods is that DL can potentially take into account all genetic interactions, including dominance and epistasis, which are expected to be of special relevance in most polyploids. In this study, we evaluated the predictive accuracy of linear and DL techniques in two important small fruits or berries: strawberry and blueberry. The two datasets contained a total of 1,358 allopolyploid strawberry (2n=8x=112) and 1,802 autopolyploid blueberry (2n=4x=48) individuals, genotyped for 9,908 and 73,045 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers, respectively, and phenotyped for five agronomic traits each. DL depends on numerous parameters that influence performance and optimizing hyperparameter values can be a critical step. Here we show that interactions between hyperparameter combinations should be expected and that the number of convolutional filters and regularization in the first layers can have an important effect on model performance. In terms of genomic prediction, we did not find an advantage of DL over linear model methods, except when the epistasis component was important. Linear Bayesian models were better than convolutional neural networks for the full additive architecture, whereas the opposite was observed under strong epistasis. However, by using a parameterization capable of taking into account these non-linear effects, Bayesian linear models can match or exceed the predictive accuracy of DL. A semiautomatic implementation of the DL pipeline is available at https://github.com/lauzingaretti/deepGP/.

Indexed as

blueberrycomplex traitsdeep learningepistasisgenomic predictiongenomic selectionpolyploid speciesstrawberry

Identifiers

PMID32117371
PMCPMC7015897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.