Predictions from algorithmic modeling result in better decisions than from data modeling for soybean iron deficiency chlorosis.
In soybean variety development and genetic improvement projects, iron deficiency chlorosis (IDC) is visually assessed as an ordinal response variable. Linear Mixed Models for Genomic Prediction (GP) have been developed, compared, and used to select continuous plant traits such as yield, height, and...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d09932bcc7aa4dac9b44723fcca3a9b8 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | In soybean variety development and genetic improvement projects, iron deficiency chlorosis (IDC) is visually assessed as an ordinal response variable. Linear Mixed Models for Genomic Prediction (GP) have been developed, compared, and used to select continuous plant traits such as yield, height, and maturity, but can be inappropriate for ordinal traits. Generalized Linear Mixed Models have been developed for GP of ordinal response variables. However, neither approach addresses the most important questions for cultivar development and genetic improvement: How frequently are the 'wrong' genotypes retained, and how often are the 'correct' genotypes discarded? The research objective reported herein was to compare outcomes from four data modeling and six algorithmic modeling GP methods applied to IDC using decision metrics appropriate for variety development and genetic improvement projects. Appropriate metrics for decision making consist of specificity, sensitivity, precision, decision accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Data modeling methods for GP included ridge regression, logistic regression, penalized logistic regression, and Bayesian generalized linear regression. Algorithmic modeling methods include Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machine, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbors, Naïve Bayes, and Artificial Neural Network. We found that a Support Vector Machine model provided the most specific decisions of correctly discarding IDC susceptible genotypes, while a Random Forest model resulted in the best decisions of retaining IDC tolerant genotypes, as well as the best outcomes when considering all decision metrics. Overall, the predictions from algorithmic modeling result in better decisions than from data modeling methods applied to soybean IDC. |
|---|