Abstract

The prediction of breeding values and phenotypes is of central importance for both livestock and crop breeding. In this study, we analyze the use of artificial neural networks (ANN) and, in particular, local convolutional neural networks (LCNN) for genomic prediction, as a region-specific filter corresponds much better with our prior genetic knowledge on the genetic architecture of traits than traditional convolutional neural networks. Model performances are evaluated on a simulated maize data panel (n = 10,000; p = 34,595) and real Arabidopsis data (n = 2,039; p = 180,000) for a variety of traits based on their predictive ability. The baseline LCNN, containing one local convolutional layer (kernel size: 10) and two fully connected layers with 64 nodes each, is outperforming commonly proposed ANNs (multi layer perceptrons and convolutional neural networks) for basically all considered traits. For traits with high heritability and large training population as present in the simulated data, LCNN are even outperforming state-of-the-art methods like genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), Bayesian models and extended GBLUP, indicated by an increase in predictive ability of up to 24%. However, for small training populations, these state-of-the-art methods outperform all considered ANNs. Nevertheless, the LCNN still outperforms all other considered ANNs by around 10%. Minor improvements to the tested baseline network architecture of the LCNN were obtained by increasing the kernel size and of reducing the stride, whereas the number of subsequent fully connected layers and their node sizes had neglectable impact. Although gains in predictive ability were obtained for large scale data sets by using LCNNs, the practical use of ANNs comes with additional problems, such as the need of genotyping all considered individuals, the lack of estimation of heritability and reliability. Furthermore, breeding values are additive by design, whereas ANN-based estimates are not. However, ANNs also comes with new opportunities, as networks can easily be extended to account for additional inputs (omics, weather etc.) and outputs (multi-trait models), and computing time increases linearly with the number of individuals. With advances in high-throughput phenotyping and cheaper genotyping, ANNs can become a valid alternative for genomic prediction.

Highlights

  • The prediction of breeding values and phenotypes is of central importance for both livestock and crop breeding

  • A variety of methods for the prediction of breeding values and phenotypes have been proposed with the most commonly applied methods being based on linear mixed models and Bayesian linear models (BayesA, BayesB, BayesC, Bayesian Lasso) (Meuwissen et al, 2001; Gianola et al, 2009)

  • Since breeding values are additive by design, most of these models only account for additive single marker effects, but extension to account for dominance and epistatic interactions have been proposed (Da et al, 2014; Jiang and Reif, 2015; Martini et al, 2017) and are regularly applied for the prediction of phenotypes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The prediction of breeding values and phenotypes is of central importance for both livestock and crop breeding. A variety of methods for the prediction of breeding values and phenotypes have been proposed with the most commonly applied methods being based on linear mixed models (genomic best linear unbiased prediction; GBLUP) and Bayesian linear models (BayesA, BayesB, BayesC, Bayesian Lasso) (Meuwissen et al, 2001; Gianola et al, 2009) Variations of these approaches have been successfully implemented in both livestock (Hayes et al, 2009; Hayes and Goddard, 2010; Gianola and Rosa, 2015) and plant breeding (Jannink et al, 2010; Albrecht et al, 2011; Nakaya and Isobe, 2012; Heslot et al, 2015). Since breeding values are additive by design, most of these models only account for additive single marker effects, but extension to account for dominance and epistatic interactions have been proposed (Da et al, 2014; Jiang and Reif, 2015; Martini et al, 2017) and are regularly applied for the prediction of phenotypes

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.