MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792982116 · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13366

Multibreed genomic prediction using multitrait genomic residual maximum likelihood and multitask Bayesian variable selection

2018· article· en· W2792982116 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M.P.L. Calus, Michael E. Goddard, Yvonne C. J. Wientjes, P.J. Bowman, Ben J. Hayes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture VictoriaLa Trobe UniversityUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsTraitQuantitative trait locusGenomic selectionBayesian probabilityBiologyBreedSelection (genetic algorithm)Context (archaeology)StatisticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismRandom effects modelGeneticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceGenotypeComputer scienceGeneMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic prediction is applicable to individuals of different breeds. Empirical results to date, however, show limited benefits in using information on multiple breeds in the context of genomic prediction. We investigated a multitask Bayesian model, presented previously by others, implemented in a Bayesian stochastic search variable selection (BSSVS) model. This model allowed for evidence of quantitative trait loci (QTL) to be accumulated across breeds or for both QTL that segregate across breeds and breed-specific QTL. In both cases, single nucleotide polymorphism effects were estimated with information from a single breed. Other models considered were a single-trait and multitrait genomic residual maximum likelihood (GREML) model, with breeds considered as different traits, and a single-trait BSSVS model. All single-trait models were applied to each of the 2 breeds separately and to the pooled data of both breeds. The data used included a training data set of 6,278 Holstein and 722 Jersey bulls, as well as 374 Jersey validation bulls. All animals had genotypes for 474,773 single nucleotide polymorphisms after editing and phenotypes for milk, fat, and protein yields. Using the same training data, BSSVS consistently outperformed GREML. The multitask BSSVS, however, did not outperform single-trait BSSVS, which used pooled Holstein and Jersey data for training. Thus, the rigorous assumption that the traits are the same in both breeds yielded a slightly better prediction than a model that had to estimate the correlation between the breeds from the data. Adding the Holstein data significantly increased the accuracy of the single-trait GREML and BSSVS in predicting the Jerseys for milk and protein, in line with estimated correlations between the breeds of 0.66 and 0.47 for milk and protein yields, whereas only the BSSVS model significantly improved the accuracy for fat yield with an estimated correlation between breeds of only 0.05. The relatively high genetic correlations for milk and protein yields, and the superiority of the pooling strategy, is likely the result of the observed admixture between both breeds in our data. The Bayesian model was able to detect several QTL in Holsteins, which likely enabled it to outperform GREML. The inability of the multitask Bayesian models to outperform a simple pooling strategy may be explained by the fact that the pooling strategy assumes equal effects in both breeds; furthermore, this assumption may be valid for moderate- to large-sized QTL, which are important for multibreed genomic prediction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207