Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Genomic prediction of pig growth traits based on machine learning.
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.
Afiliación
  • Chen D; Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Wang SJ; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Zhao ZJ; State Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Ji X; Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Shen Q; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Yu Y; State Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Cui SD; Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Wang JG; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Chen ZY; State Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Wang JY; Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Guo ZY; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Wu PX; State Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
  • Tang GQ; Key Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China.
Yi Chuan ; 45(10): 922-932, 2023 Oct 20.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37872114
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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Genoma / Modelos Genéticos Límite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: Yi Chuan Asunto de la revista: GENETICA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Genoma / Modelos Genéticos Límite: Animals Idioma: En Revista: Yi Chuan Asunto de la revista: GENETICA Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: China