Modeling first order additive × additive epistasis improves accuracy of genomic prediction for sclerotinia stem rot resistance in canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum infects hundreds of plant species including many crops. Resistance to this pathogen in canola (Brassica napus L. subsp. napus) is controlled by numerous quantitative trait loci (QTL). For such polygenic traits, genomic prediction may be useful for breeding as it can capture many QTL at once while also considering nonadditive genetic effects. Here, we test application of common regression models to genomic prediction of S. sclerotiorum resistance in canola in a diverse panel of 218 plants genotyped at 24,634 loci. Disease resistance was scored by infection with an aggressive isolate and monitoring over 3 wk. We found that including first-order additive × additive epistasis in linear mixed models (LMMs) improved accuracy of breeding value estimation between 3 and 40%, depending on method of assessment, and correlation between phenotypes and predicted total genetic values by 14%. Bayesian models performed similarly to or worse than genomic relationship matrix-based models for estimating breeding values or overall phenotypes from genetic values. Bayesian ridge regression, which is most similar to the genomic relationship matrix-based approach in the amount of shrinkage it applies to marker effects, was the most accurate of this family of models. This confirms several studies indicating the highly polygenic nature of sclerotinia stem rot resistance. Overall, our results highlight the use of simple epistasis terms for prediction of breeding values and total genetic values for a complex disease resistance phenotype in canola.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".