Genomic prediction of pig growth traits based on machine learning.

Q3 Medicine
遗传 Pub Date : 2023-10-20 DOI:10.16288/j.yczz.23-120
Chen Dong, Wang Shu-Jie, Zhao Zhen-Jian, Ji Xiang, Shen Qi, Yu Yang, Cui Sheng-di, Wang Jun-Ge, Chen Zi-Yang, Wang Jin-Yong, Guo Zong-Yi, Wu Ping-Xian, Tang Guo-Qing
{"title":"Genomic prediction of pig growth traits based on machine learning.","authors":"Chen Dong,&nbsp;Wang Shu-Jie,&nbsp;Zhao Zhen-Jian,&nbsp;Ji Xiang,&nbsp;Shen Qi,&nbsp;Yu Yang,&nbsp;Cui Sheng-di,&nbsp;Wang Jun-Ge,&nbsp;Chen Zi-Yang,&nbsp;Wang Jin-Yong,&nbsp;Guo Zong-Yi,&nbsp;Wu Ping-Xian,&nbsp;Tang Guo-Qing","doi":"10.16288/j.yczz.23-120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to assess and compare the performance of different machine learning models in predicting selected pig growth traits and genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) using automated machine learning, with the goal of optimizing whole-genome evaluation methods in pig breeding. The research employed genomic information, pedigree matrices, fixed effects, and phenotype data from 9968 pigs across multiple companies to derive four optimal machine learning models: deep learning (DL), random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). Through 10-fold cross-validation, predictions were made for GEBV and phenotypes of pigs reaching weight milestones (100 kg and 115 kg) with adjustments for backfat and days to weight. The findings indicated that machine learning models exhibited higher accuracy in predicting GEBV compared to phenotypic traits. Notably, GBM demonstrated superior GEBV prediction accuracy, with values of 0.683, 0.710, 0.866, and 0.871 for B100, B115, D100, and D115, respectively, slightly outperforming other methods. In phenotype prediction, GBM emerged as the best-performing model for pigs with B100, B115, D100, and D115 traits, achieving prediction accuracies of 0.547, followed by DL at 0.547, and then XGB with accuracies of 0.672 and 0.670. In terms of model training time, RF required the most time, while GBM and DL fell in between, and XGB demonstrated the shortest training time. In summary, machine learning models obtained through automated techniques exhibited higher GEBV prediction accuracy compared to phenotypic traits. GBM emerged as the overall top performer in terms of prediction accuracy and training time efficiency, while XGB demonstrated the ability to train accurate prediction models within a short timeframe. RF, on the other hand, had longer training times and insufficient accuracy, rendering it unsuitable for predicting pig growth traits and GEBV.</p>","PeriodicalId":35536,"journal":{"name":"遗传","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"遗传","FirstCategoryId":"1091","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16288/j.yczz.23-120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to assess and compare the performance of different machine learning models in predicting selected pig growth traits and genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) using automated machine learning, with the goal of optimizing whole-genome evaluation methods in pig breeding. The research employed genomic information, pedigree matrices, fixed effects, and phenotype data from 9968 pigs across multiple companies to derive four optimal machine learning models: deep learning (DL), random forest (RF), gradient boosting machine (GBM), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB). Through 10-fold cross-validation, predictions were made for GEBV and phenotypes of pigs reaching weight milestones (100 kg and 115 kg) with adjustments for backfat and days to weight. The findings indicated that machine learning models exhibited higher accuracy in predicting GEBV compared to phenotypic traits. Notably, GBM demonstrated superior GEBV prediction accuracy, with values of 0.683, 0.710, 0.866, and 0.871 for B100, B115, D100, and D115, respectively, slightly outperforming other methods. In phenotype prediction, GBM emerged as the best-performing model for pigs with B100, B115, D100, and D115 traits, achieving prediction accuracies of 0.547, followed by DL at 0.547, and then XGB with accuracies of 0.672 and 0.670. In terms of model training time, RF required the most time, while GBM and DL fell in between, and XGB demonstrated the shortest training time. In summary, machine learning models obtained through automated techniques exhibited higher GEBV prediction accuracy compared to phenotypic traits. GBM emerged as the overall top performer in terms of prediction accuracy and training time efficiency, while XGB demonstrated the ability to train accurate prediction models within a short timeframe. RF, on the other hand, had longer training times and insufficient accuracy, rendering it unsuitable for predicting pig growth traits and GEBV.

基于机器学习的猪生长性状基因组预测。
本研究旨在评估和比较不同机器学习模型在使用自动机器学习预测选定的猪生长性状和基因组估计育种值(GEBV)方面的性能,目的是优化猪育种中的全基因组评估方法。该研究利用多家公司9968头猪的基因组信息、谱系矩阵、固定效应和表型数据,推导出四个最佳机器学习模型:深度学习(DL)、随机森林(RF)、梯度增强机(GBM)和极端梯度增强(XGB)。通过10倍交叉验证,对达到体重里程碑(100公斤和115公斤)的猪的GEBV和表型进行了预测,并对背部和体重天数进行了调整。研究结果表明,与表型特征相比,机器学习模型在预测GEBV方面表现出更高的准确性。值得注意的是,GBM显示出优越的GEBV预测精度,B100、B115、D100和D115的值分别为0.683、0.710、0.866和0.871,略优于其他方法。在表型预测中,GBM是具有B100、B115、D100和D115性状的猪表现最好的模型,预测准确率为0.547,其次是DL,预测准确度为0.547。XGB的预测准确率分别为0.672和0.670。就模型训练时间而言,RF需要的时间最多,而GBM和DL介于两者之间,XGB的训练时间最短。总之,与表型性状相比,通过自动化技术获得的机器学习模型显示出更高的GEBV预测准确性。GBM在预测准确性和训练时间效率方面表现最佳,而XGB则证明了在短时间内训练准确预测模型的能力。另一方面,RF的训练时间较长,准确性不足,不适合预测猪的生长性状和GEBV。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
遗传
遗传 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6699
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信