Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32474602›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

Genome-wide prediction for complex traits under the presence of dominance effects in simulated populations using GBLUP and machine learning methods.

Anderson Antonio Carvalho Alves, Rebeka Magalhães da Costa, Tiago Bresolin, Gerardo Alves Fernandes Júnior, Rafael Espigolan, André Mauric Frossard Ribeiro, Roberto Carvalheiro, Lucia Galvão de Albuquerque

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Anderson Antonio Carvalho AlvesDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil.
Rebeka Magalhães da CostaDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil.
Tiago BresolinDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Gerardo Alves Fernandes JúniorDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil.
Rafael EspigolanDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering, University of Sao Paulo, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil.
André Mauric Frossard RibeiroNational Council of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq), Brasilia, Brazil.
Roberto CarvalheiroDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil.
Lucia Galvão de AlbuquerqueDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil.
National Council for Scientific and Technological Development · BRUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance of the Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Predictor (GBLUP) and machine learning methods (Random Forest, RF; Support Vector Machine, SVM; Artificial Neural Network, ANN) in simulated populations presenting different levels of dominance effects. Simulated genome comprised 50k SNP and 300 QTL, both biallelic and randomly distributed across 29 autosomes. A total of six traits were simulated considering different values for the narrow and broad-sense heritability. In the purely additive scenario with low heritability (h2 = 0.10), the predictive ability obtained using GBLUP was slightly higher than the other methods whereas ANN provided the highest accuracies for scenarios with moderate heritability (h2 = 0.30). The accuracies of dominance deviations predictions varied from 0.180 to 0.350 in GBLUP extended for dominance effects (GBLUP-D), from 0.06 to 0.185 in RF and they were null using the ANN and SVM methods. Although RF has presented higher accuracies for total genetic effect predictions, the mean-squared error values in such a model were worse than those observed for GBLUP-D in scenarios with large additive and dominance variances. When applied to prescreen important regions, the RF approach detected QTL with high additive and/or dominance effects. Among machine learning methods, only the RF was capable to cover implicitly dominance effects without increasing the number of covariates in the model, resulting in higher accuracies for the total genetic and phenotypic values as the dominance ratio increases. Nevertheless, whether the interest is to infer directly on dominance effects, GBLUP-D could be a more suitable method.

Indexed as

GenomicsMachine LearningMultifactorial InheritanceAnimalsBreedingComputer SimulationFemaleGenes, DominantGenomeGenotypeMalePhenotypeArtificial Neural Networkgenomic selectionnonadditive effectsRandom ForestSupport Vector Machine

Identifiers

PMID32474602
PMCPMC7367166
OpenAlexW3030536084

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.