{"title":"Application of linear and machine learning models to genomic prediction of fatty acid composition in Japanese Black cattle","authors":"Motohide Nishio, Keiichi Inoue, Aisaku Arakawa, Kasumi Ichinoseki, Eiji Kobayashi, Toshihiro Okamura, Yo Fukuzawa, Shinichiro Ogawa, Masaaki Taniguchi, Mika Oe, Masayuki Takeda, Takehiro Kamata, Masaru Konno, Michihiro Takagi, Mario Sekiya, Tamotsu Matsuzawa, Yoshinobu Inoue, Akihiro Watanabe, Hiroshi Kobayashi, Eri Shibata, Akihumi Ohtani, Ryu Yazaki, Ryotaro Nakashima, Kazuo Ishii","doi":"10.1111/asj.13883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We collected 3180 records of oleic acid (C18:1) and monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) measured using gas chromatography (GC) and 6960 records of C18:1 and MUFA measured using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) in intermuscular fat samples of Japanese Black cattle. We compared genomic prediction performance for four linear models (genomic best linear unbiased prediction [GBLUP], kinship-adjusted multiple loci [KAML], BayesC, and BayesLASSO) and five machine learning models (Gaussian kernel [GK], deep kernel [DK], random forest [RF], extreme gradient boost [XGB], and convolutional neural network [CNN]). For GC-based C18:1 and MUFA, KAML showed the highest accuracies, followed by BayesC, XGB, DK, GK, and BayesLASSO, with more than 6% gain of accuracy by KAML over GBLUP. Meanwhile, DK had the highest prediction accuracy for NIRS-based C18:1 and MUFA, but the difference in accuracies between DK and KAML was slight. For all traits, accuracies of RF and CNN were lower than those of GBLUP. The KAML extends GBLUP methods, of which marker effects are weighted, and involves only additive genetic effects; whereas machine learning methods capture non-additive genetic effects. Thus, KAML is the most suitable method for breeding of fatty acid composition in Japanese Black cattle.</p>","PeriodicalId":7890,"journal":{"name":"Animal Science Journal","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Science Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asj.13883","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We collected 3180 records of oleic acid (C18:1) and monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) measured using gas chromatography (GC) and 6960 records of C18:1 and MUFA measured using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) in intermuscular fat samples of Japanese Black cattle. We compared genomic prediction performance for four linear models (genomic best linear unbiased prediction [GBLUP], kinship-adjusted multiple loci [KAML], BayesC, and BayesLASSO) and five machine learning models (Gaussian kernel [GK], deep kernel [DK], random forest [RF], extreme gradient boost [XGB], and convolutional neural network [CNN]). For GC-based C18:1 and MUFA, KAML showed the highest accuracies, followed by BayesC, XGB, DK, GK, and BayesLASSO, with more than 6% gain of accuracy by KAML over GBLUP. Meanwhile, DK had the highest prediction accuracy for NIRS-based C18:1 and MUFA, but the difference in accuracies between DK and KAML was slight. For all traits, accuracies of RF and CNN were lower than those of GBLUP. The KAML extends GBLUP methods, of which marker effects are weighted, and involves only additive genetic effects; whereas machine learning methods capture non-additive genetic effects. Thus, KAML is the most suitable method for breeding of fatty acid composition in Japanese Black cattle.
期刊介绍:
Animal Science Journal (a continuation of Animal Science and Technology) is the official journal of the Japanese Society of Animal Science (JSAS) and publishes Original Research Articles (full papers and rapid communications) in English in all fields of animal and poultry science: genetics and breeding, genetic engineering, reproduction, embryo manipulation, nutrition, feeds and feeding, physiology, anatomy, environment and behavior, animal products (milk, meat, eggs and their by-products) and their processing, and livestock economics. Animal Science Journal will invite Review Articles in consultations with Editors. Submission to the Journal is open to those who are interested in animal science.