Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42079770›Full record

ArticleBreeding science2025

Applying gradient tree boosting to QTL mapping with Shapley additive explanations.

Tomohiro Ishibashi, Akio Onogi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breeding science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Tomohiro IshibashiDepartment of Life Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Ryukoku University, Otsu, Shiga 520-2194, Japan.
Akio OnogiDepartment of Life Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Ryukoku University, Otsu, Shiga 520-2194, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mapping quantitative trait loci (QTLs) is one of the major goals of quantitative genetics; however, identifying the interactions between QTLs (i.e., epistasis) remains challenging. Recently developed machine learning methods, such as deep learning and gradient boosting, are transforming the real world. These methods could advance QTL mapping methodologies because of their high capability for capturing complex relationships among features. One problem with applying such complex models to QTL mapping is the evaluation of feature importance. In this study, XGBoost, a popular gradient tree boosting algorithm, was applied for QTL mapping in biparental populations with Shapley additive explanations (SHAPs). SHAP is a local (i.e., instance-wise) importance index with the desired properties as feature importance indices. The SHAP-assisted XGBoost (SHAP-XGB) was compared with conventional methods, including composite interval mapping (CIM), multiple interval mapping (MIM), inclusive CIM (ICIM), and BayesC, using simulations and rice heading date data. SHAP-XGB performed comparably to CIM, MIM, ICIM, and BayesC in mapping main QTL effects and was superior to MIM, ICIM, and BayesC in mapping QTL interaction effects. As SHAP can evaluate local importance, interactions between markers can be visualized by plotting SHAP interaction values for each instance (plant/line). These results illustrated the strength of SHAP-XGB in detecting and interpreting epistatic QTLs and suggest the possibility that SHAP-XGB complements conventional methods.

Indexed as

association mappingepistasisgene interactionSHAPvariable selection

Identifiers

PMID42079770
PMCPMC13129572

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.