MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177421711 · doi:10.1101/2021.06.24.449776

Machine Learning based Genome-Wide Association Studies for Uncovering QTL Underlying Soybean Yield and its Components

2021· preprint· en· W3177421711 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohsen Yoosefzadeh-Najafabadi, Sepideh Torabi, Davoud Torkamaneh, Dan Tulpan, Istvan Rajcan, Milad Eskandari

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsQuantitative trait locusGenome-wide association studyFamily-based QTL mappingTraitBiologyGenetic associationRandom forestComputational biologyMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceGeneticsGeneGene mappingGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Genome-wide association study (GWAS) is currently one of the important approaches for discovering quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated with traits of interest. However, insufficient statistical power is the limiting factor in current conventional GWAS methods for characterizing quantitative traits, especially in narrow genetic bases plants such as soybean. In this study, we evaluated the potential use of machine learning (ML) algorithms such as support vector machine (SVR) and random forest (RF) in GWAS, compared with two conventional methods of mixed linear models (MLM) and fixed and random model circulating probability unification (FarmCPU), for identifying QTL associated with soybean yield components. In this study, important soybean yield component traits, including the number of reproductive nodes (RNP), non-reproductive nodes (NRNP), total nodes (NP), and total pods (PP) per plant along with yield and maturity were assessed using 227 soybean genotypes evaluated across four environments. Our results indicated SVR-mediated GWAS outperformed RF, MLM and FarmCPU in discovering the most relevant QTL associated with the traits, supported by the functional annotation of candidate gene analyses. This study for the first time demonstrated the potential benefit of using sophisticated mathematical approaches such as ML algorithms in GWAS for identifying QTL suitable for genomic-based breeding programs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207