» Articles » PMID: 36553547

A Comparison Between Three Tuning Strategies for Gaussian Kernels in the Context of Univariate Genomic Prediction

Overview
Journal Genes (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Date 2022 Dec 23
PMID 36553547
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Genomic prediction is revolutionizing plant breeding since candidate genotypes can be selected without the need to measure their trait in the field. When a reference population contains both phenotypic and genotypic information, it is trained by a statistical machine learning method that is subsequently used for making predictions of breeding or phenotypic values of candidate genotypes that were only genotyped. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of the genomic selection (GS) methodology depends on many factors. One key factor is the type of statistical machine learning method used since some are unable to capture nonlinear patterns available in the data. While kernel methods are powerful statistical machine learning algorithms that capture complex nonlinear patterns in the data, their successful implementation strongly depends on the careful tuning process of the involved hyperparameters. As such, in this paper we compare three methods of tuning (manual tuning, grid search, and Bayesian optimization) for the Gaussian kernel under a Bayesian best linear unbiased predictor model. We used six real datasets of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to compare the three strategies of tuning. We found that if we want to obtain the major benefits of using Gaussian kernels, it is very important to perform a careful tuning process. The best prediction performance was observed when the tuning process was performed with grid search and Bayesian optimization. However, we did not observe relevant differences between the grid search and Bayesian optimization approach. The observed gains in terms of prediction performance were between 2.1% and 27.8% across the six datasets under study.

Citing Articles

Genetic Algorithm-based Convolutional Neural Network Feature Engineering for Optimizing Coronary Heart Disease Prediction Performance.

Hidayat E, Astuti Y, Dewi I, Salam A, Soeleman M, Hasibuan Z Healthc Inform Res. 2024; 30(3):234-243.

PMID: 39160782 PMC: 11333810. DOI: 10.4258/hir.2024.30.3.234.


A Multi-Trait Gaussian Kernel Genomic Prediction Model under Three Tunning Strategies.

Kismiantini , Montesinos-Lopez A, Cano-Paez B, Montesinos-Lopez J, Chavira-Flores M, Montesinos-Lopez O Genes (Basel). 2022; 13(12).

PMID: 36553548 PMC: 9778253. DOI: 10.3390/genes13122279.

References
1.
Lehner B . Molecular mechanisms of epistasis within and between genes. Trends Genet. 2011; 27(8):323-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2011.05.007. View

2.
Buil A, Brown A, Lappalainen T, Vinuela A, Davies M, Zheng H . Gene-gene and gene-environment interactions detected by transcriptome sequence analysis in twins. Nat Genet. 2014; 47(1):88-91. PMC: 4643454. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3162. View

3.
Morota G, Koyama M, Rosa G, Weigel K, Gianola D . Predicting complex traits using a diffusion kernel on genetic markers with an application to dairy cattle and wheat data. Genet Sel Evol. 2013; 45:17. PMC: 3706293. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-45-17. View

4.
Moore J, Williams S . Epistasis and its implications for personal genetics. Am J Hum Genet. 2009; 85(3):309-20. PMC: 2771593. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.08.006. View

5.
Tusell L, Perez-Rodriguez P, Forni S, Wu X, Gianola D . Genome-enabled methods for predicting litter size in pigs: a comparison. Animal. 2013; 7(11):1739-49. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731113001389. View