Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37728221›Full record

ArticleThe plant genome2023

Genomic prediction with machine learning in sugarcane, a complex highly polyploid clonally propagated crop with substantial non-additive variation for key traits.

Chensong Chen, Owen Powell, Eric Dinglasan, Elizabeth M Ross, Seema Yadav, Xianming Wei, Felicity Atkin, Emily Deomano, Ben J Hayes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The plant genome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chensong ChenQueensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4276-8865
Owen PowellQueensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5131-4286
Eric DinglasanQueensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4824-5977
Elizabeth M RossQueensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7521-3671
Seema YadavQueensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7191-7770
Xianming WeiSugar Research Australia, Mackay, Australia.
Felicity AtkinSugar Research Australia, Gordonvale, Australia.
Emily DeomanoSugar Research Australia, Indooroopilly, Australia.
Ben J HayesQueensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5606-3970
The University of Queensland · AUSugar Research Australia (Australia) · AU

Funding

Sugar Research Australia 2017/002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sugarcane has a complex, highly polyploid genome with multi-species ancestry. Additive models for genomic prediction of clonal performance might not capture interactions between genes and alleles from different ploidies and ancestral species. As such, genomic prediction in sugarcane presents an interesting case for machine learning (ML) methods, which are purportedly able to deal with high levels of complexity in prediction. Here, we investigated deep learning (DL) neural networks, including multilayer networks (MLP) and convolution neural networks (CNN), and an ensemble machine learning approach, random forest (RF), for genomic prediction in sugarcane. The data set used was 2912 sugarcane clones, scored for 26,086 genome wide single nucleotide polymorphism markers, with final assessment trial data for total cane harvested (TCH), commercial cane sugar (CCS), and fiber content (Fiber). The clones in the latest trial (2017) were used as a validation set. We compared prediction accuracy of these methods to genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) extended to include dominance and epistatic effects. The prediction accuracies from GBLUP models were up to 0.37 for TCH, 0.43 for CCS, and 0.48 for Fiber, while the optimized ML models had prediction accuracies of 0.35 for TCH, 0.38 for CCS, and 0.48 for Fiber. Both RF and DL neural network models have comparable predictive ability with the additive GBLUP model but are less accurate than the extended GBLUP model.

Indexed as

SaccharumGenomicsMachine LearningPlant BreedingPolyploidy

Identifiers

PMID37728221
PMCPMC12806881
OpenAlexW4386878580

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.