| Literature DB >> 32103071 |
Dandan Deng1, Wenting Dai1, Jixin Li1, Qiang Zhang2,1, Xinwen Jin3.
Abstract
Artificial neural network is an efficient and accurate fitting method. It has the function of self-learning, which is particularly important for prediction, and it could take advantage of the computer's high-speed computing capabilities and find the optimal solution quickly. In this paper, four culture conditions: agar concentration, light time, culture temperature, and humidity were selected. And a three-layer neural network was used to predict the differentiation rate of melon under these four conditions. Ten-fold cross validation revealed that the optimal back propagation neural network was established with traingdx as the training function and the final architecture of 4-3-1 (four neurons in the input layer, three neurons in the hidden layer and one neuron in the output layer), which yielded a high coefficient of correlation (R2, 0.9637) between the actual and predicted outputs, and a root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 0.0108, suggesting that the artificial neural network worked well. According to the optimal culture conditions generated by genetic algorithm, tissue culture experiments had been carried out. The results showed that the actual differentiation rate of melon reached 90.53%, and only 1.59% lower than the predicted value of genetic algorithm. It was better than the optimization by response surface methodology, which the predicted induced differentiation rate is 86.04%, the actual value is 83.62%, and was 2.89% lower than the predicted value. It can be inferred that the combination of artificial neural network and genetic algorithm can optimize the plant tissue culture conditions well and with high prediction accuracy, and this method will have a good application prospect in other biological experiments.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32103071 PMCID: PMC7044330 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60278-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Show the rate of differentiation measured by CCD experiment and that predicted using ANN.
| No. | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y4 | The rate of differentiation ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual values | Predicted values | |||||
| 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 83.21 | 82.89 |
| 2 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 80.37 | 80.26 |
| 3 | −1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 76.53 | 77.35 |
| 4 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 74.82 | 76.15 |
| 5 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 80.15 | 81.83 |
| 6 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 76.38 | 76.28 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 73.75 | 73.66 |
| 8 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 69.85 | 69.88 |
| 9 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 87.82 | 87.35 |
| 10 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 85.38 | 82.54 |
| 11 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 83.34 | 83.23 |
| 12 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | 80.52 | 79.97 |
| 13 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 85.5 | 85.62 |
| 14 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | 82.99 | 81.63 |
| 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 80.33 | 80.85 |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 76.51 | 76.74 |
| 17 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 76.29 | 75.87 |
| 18 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 78.52 | 80.11 |
| 19 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 0 | 82.59 | 84.84 |
| 20 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 78.38 | 79.83 |
| 21 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 0 | 78.43 | 81.47 |
| 22 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 71.87 | 71.38 |
| 23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | −2 | 80.26 | 79.69 |
| 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 76.37 | 76.19 |
| 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82.98 | 83.16 |
| 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.25 | 83.16 |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.06 | 83.16 |
| 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.32 | 83.16 |
| 29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 82.65 | 83.16 |
| 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.29 | 83.16 |
| 31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 83.37 | 83.16 |
| RMSE | 0.0108 | |||||
| 0.9637 | ||||||
Figure 1Comparison of the 11 BP algorithms with 6 neurons in the hidden layer.
Figure 2Relationship between number of neurons in the hidden layer and MSE.
Figure 3Curve of fitness value per generation of the genetic algorithm.
Show the comparison between GA predicted and actual differentiation.
| Replicates | GA predicted value (%) | Actual value (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 91.97 | 90.35 |
| 2 | 89.97 | |
| 3 | 91.26 | |
| Mean | 90.53 | |
| Error (%) | 1.59 |
Show the comparison between response surface methodology predicted and actual differentiation.
| Replicates | GA predicted value (%) | Actual value (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 86.04 | 83.85 |
| 2 | 82.65 | |
| 3 | 84.37 | |
| Mean | 83.62 | |
| Error (%) | 2.89 |
Show the light duration, culture temperature and relative humidity and their levels for the CCD.
| Independent variables | Levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −2 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Agar concentration (Y1, %) | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Light duration (Y2, h/d) | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 |
| Culture temperature (Y3, °C) | 20 | 24 | 28 | 32 | 36 |
| Relative humidity (Y4, %) | 50 | 60 | 70 | 80 | 90 |