Machine Learning for Prediction of Resistance Scores in Wheat (<i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.)

ABSTRACT Machine learning methods were shown to improve the prediction accuracies of genomic prediction of resistance scores compared to methods like RR‐BLUP, which were originally designed for metric rather than ordinal response values. We conducted a cross‐validation study with 361 wheat genotypes evaluated for five fungal diseases. Our objective was to compare the prediction accuracy and the ability to identify the most resistant genotypes of 19 genomic prediction approaches. Each approach consisted of a different combination of prediction method (RR‐BLUP, an alternative method with heterogeneous marker variances, Bayesian generalized linear regression with an ordinal response, support vector machine, gradient boosting machine and random forest), predictor (single SNP markers, LD‐based haplotype blocks, 250 variables generated with an autoencoder and SNPs identified with incremental feature selection) and response value (untransformed and logit‐transformed resistance scores). In our dataset, RR‐BLUP was consistently among the methods with the largest prediction accuracies and the best abilities to identify resistant genotypes in four of five investigated traits. However, in P. triticina , using gradient boosting machine and random forest instead of RR‐BLUP increased the prediction accuracy from 0.64 to 0.71, indicating that machine learning methods may have an advantage over linear models in genomic prediction. We also found that even though there was a positive correlation between the prediction accuracy and Cohen's , a measure to judge how well the most resistant genotypes can be identified, the correlation is not perfect and a large value for the prediction accuracy does not necessarily translate into an equally large value.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Plant Breeding
Published
2024-11-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.13235
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Genetics and Plant Breeding
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.80

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Machine Learning for Prediction of Resistance Scores in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Benjamin Wittkop, László Csélènyi, Carola Zenke‐Philippi, Andreas Stahl et al.
3 citations
Plant Breeding
Genetics and Plant Breeding
1.80
article

Machine Learning for Prediction of Resistance Scores in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Benjamin Wittkop, László Csélènyi, Carola Zenke‐Philippi, Andreas Stahl, Matthias Frisch, Martin Kirchhoff, Yohannes Fekadu Difabachew, Michael Koch, Jutta Förster, Markus Wolf, Rod J. Snowdon, Philipp Georg Heilmann, Anna Moritz
article en
3 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Machine learning methods were shown to improve the prediction accuracies of genomic prediction of resistance scores compared to methods like RR‐BLUP, which were originally designed for metric rather than ordinal response values. We conducted a cross‐validation study with 361 wheat genotypes evaluated for five fungal diseases. Our objective was to compare the prediction accuracy and the ability to identify the most resistant genotypes of 19 genomic prediction approaches. Each approach consisted of a different combination of prediction method (RR‐BLUP, an alternative method with heterogeneous marker variances, Bayesian generalized linear regression with an ordinal response, support vector machine, gradient boosting machine and random forest), predictor (single SNP markers, LD‐based haplotype blocks, 250 variables generated with an autoencoder and SNPs identified with incremental feature selection) and response value (untransformed and logit‐transformed resistance scores). In our dataset, RR‐BLUP was consistently among the methods with the largest prediction accuracies and the best abilities to identify resistant genotypes in four of five investigated traits. However, in P. triticina , using gradient boosting machine and random forest instead of RR‐BLUP increased the prediction accuracy from 0.64 to 0.71, indicating that machine learning methods may have an advantage over linear models in genomic prediction. We also found that even though there was a positive correlation between the prediction accuracy and Cohen's , a measure to judge how well the most resistant genotypes can be identified, the correlation is not perfect and a large value for the prediction accuracy does not necessarily translate into an equally large value.

Plant BreedingVol. 144(2)
Lufthansa (Germany) (DE), Julius Kühn-Institut (DE), Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE), Saaten Union (Germany) (DE), KWS Saat (Germany) (DE), W. von Borries-Eckendorf GmbH & Co. KG (Germany)
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Genetics and Plant Breeding
1.80
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.