Osval Antonio Montesinos-López1, Abelardo Montesinos-López2, Paulino Pérez-Rodríguez3, José Alberto Barrón-López4, Johannes W R Martini5, Silvia Berenice Fajardo-Flores1, Laura S Gaytan-Lugo6, Pedro C Santana-Mancilla1, José Crossa7,8. 1. Facultad de Telemática, Universidad de Colima, 28040, Colima, Colima, Mexico. 2. Departamento de Matemáticas, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías (CUCEI), Universidad de Guadalajara, 44430, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. aml_uach2004@hotmail.com. 3. Colegio de Postgraduados, CP 56230, Montecillos, Edo. de México, Mexico. 4. Department of Animal Production (DPA), Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Av. La Molina s/n La Molina, 15024, Lima, Peru. 5. Biometrics and Statistics Unit, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Km 45, CP 52640, Carretera Mexico-Veracruz, Mexico. 6. School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Universidad de Colima, 28040, Colima, Colima, Mexico. 7. Colegio de Postgraduados, CP 56230, Montecillos, Edo. de México, Mexico. j.crossa@cgiar.org. 8. Biometrics and Statistics Unit, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Km 45, CP 52640, Carretera Mexico-Veracruz, Mexico. j.crossa@cgiar.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several conventional genomic Bayesian (or no Bayesian) prediction methods have been proposed including the standard additive genetic effect model for which the variance components are estimated with mixed model equations. In recent years, deep learning (DL) methods have been considered in the context of genomic prediction. The DL methods are nonparametric models providing flexibility to adapt to complicated associations between data and output with the ability to adapt to very complex patterns. MAIN BODY: We review the applications of deep learning (DL) methods in genomic selection (GS) to obtain a meta-picture of GS performance and highlight how these tools can help solve challenging plant breeding problems. We also provide general guidance for the effective use of DL methods including the fundamentals of DL and the requirements for its appropriate use. We discuss the pros and cons of this technique compared to traditional genomic prediction approaches as well as the current trends in DL applications. CONCLUSIONS: The main requirement for using DL is the quality and sufficiently large training data. Although, based on current literature GS in plant and animal breeding we did not find clear superiority of DL in terms of prediction power compared to conventional genome based prediction models. Nevertheless, there are clear evidences that DL algorithms capture nonlinear patterns more efficiently than conventional genome based. Deep learning algorithms are able to integrate data from different sources as is usually needed in GS assisted breeding and it shows the ability for improving prediction accuracy for large plant breeding data. It is important to apply DL to large training-testing data sets.
BACKGROUND: Several conventional genomic Bayesian (or no Bayesian) prediction methods have been proposed including the standard additive genetic effect model for which the variance components are estimated with mixed model equations. In recent years, deep learning (DL) methods have been considered in the context of genomic prediction. The DL methods are nonparametric models providing flexibility to adapt to complicated associations between data and output with the ability to adapt to very complex patterns. MAIN BODY: We review the applications of deep learning (DL) methods in genomic selection (GS) to obtain a meta-picture of GS performance and highlight how these tools can help solve challenging plant breeding problems. We also provide general guidance for the effective use of DL methods including the fundamentals of DL and the requirements for its appropriate use. We discuss the pros and cons of this technique compared to traditional genomic prediction approaches as well as the current trends in DL applications. CONCLUSIONS: The main requirement for using DL is the quality and sufficiently large training data. Although, based on current literature GS in plant and animal breeding we did not find clear superiority of DL in terms of prediction power compared to conventional genome based prediction models. Nevertheless, there are clear evidences that DL algorithms capture nonlinear patterns more efficiently than conventional genome based. Deep learning algorithms are able to integrate data from different sources as is usually needed in GS assisted breeding and it shows the ability for improving prediction accuracy for large plant breeding data. It is important to apply DL to large training-testing data sets.
Entities:
Keywords:
Deep learning; Genomic selection; Genomic trends; Plant breeding
Authors: José Crossa; Johannes W R Martini; Daniel Gianola; Paulino Pérez-Rodríguez; Diego Jarquin; Philomin Juliana; Osval Montesinos-López; Jaime Cuevas Journal: Front Genet Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: José Crossa; Diego Jarquín; Jorge Franco; Paulino Pérez-Rodríguez; Juan Burgueño; Carolina Saint-Pierre; Prashant Vikram; Carolina Sansaloni; Cesar Petroli; Deniz Akdemir; Clay Sneller; Matthew Reynolds; Maria Tattaris; Thomas Payne; Carlos Guzman; Roberto J Peña; Peter Wenzl; Sukhwinder Singh Journal: G3 (Bethesda) Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Zhikai Liang; Shashi K Gupta; Cheng-Ting Yeh; Yang Zhang; Daniel W Ngu; Ramesh Kumar; Hemant T Patil; Kanulal D Mungra; Dev Vart Yadav; Abhishek Rathore; Rakesh K Srivastava; Rajeev Gupta; Jinliang Yang; Rajeev K Varshney; Patrick S Schnable; James C Schnable Journal: G3 (Bethesda) Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Marcel O Berkner; Albert W Schulthess; Yusheng Zhao; Yong Jiang; Markus Oppermann; Jochen C Reif Journal: Theor Appl Genet Date: 2022-10-01 Impact factor: 5.574
Authors: Osval Antonio Montesinos-López; Abelardo Montesinos-López; Brandon A Mosqueda-Gonzalez; José Cricelio Montesinos-López; José Crossa Journal: Methods Mol Biol Date: 2022
Authors: Giovanni Galli; Felipe Sabadin; Rafael Massahiro Yassue; Cassia Galves; Humberto Fanelli Carvalho; Jose Crossa; Osval Antonio Montesinos-López; Roberto Fritsche-Neto Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2022-03-07 Impact factor: 5.753
Authors: Sheikh Jubair; James R Tucker; Nathan Henderson; Colin W Hiebert; Ana Badea; Michael Domaratzki; W G Dilantha Fernando Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 5.753