Bayesian networks and structural equation models reveal genetic causal relationships between productivity, defense, and climate-adaptability traits in interior lodgepole pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the integration of Bayesian networks (BN) and structural equation models (SEM) to explore genomic relationships among nine traits related to productivity, defense, and climate-adaptability in an interior lodgepole pine breeding program. Data from 392 open-pollinated trees, genotyped with 25,099 SNP markers, were analyzed. The traditional multitrait model (MTM) served as a benchmark for comparing SEM in estimating genetic (co)variance components, genetic correlations, breeding value (BV) predictions, and predictive ability, using both pedigree- (ABLUP) and genomic-based (GBLUP) individual-tree mixed models. The Hill-Climbing algorithm identified 12 significant causal structures (λ) among traits. Strong positive causal effects included tree height (HT) on wood density (WD) (λHT→WD = 0.413) and on stable carbon isotope ratio (C13) (λHT→C13 = 0.565), and limonene (LIMO) on carbon assimilation rate (CAR) (λLIMO→CAR = 0.368). The most influential causal relationship was HT → C13, followed by resistance to western gall rust (WGR) → CAR, CAR → LIMO, and WGR → C13. SEM incorporated these relationships, capturing both direct and indirect effects. Compared with MTM, SEM yielded lower residual variances, higher additive variances, and higher heritability estimates for all traits. The λ values from SEM correlated strongly with genetic correlations (0.932), with similarly high correlations between models (0.929), though SEM produced lower posterior mean correlations. BV correlations between models were high (ABLUP > 0.82, GBLUP > 0.84), but some reranking occurred among the top 39 trees (ABLUP > 0.71, GBLUP > 0.42). ABLUP and GBLUP-SEM models outperformed MTM in predictive ability, with mean gains of 6.62 and 6.03%, mainly for conditioned traits. BN-SEM enhances understanding of trait networks, improving genomic evaluations and breeding strategies in forest trees.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".