↓ Skip to main content

A deep convolutional neural network approach for predicting phenotypes from genotypes

Overview of attention for article published in Planta, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
140 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
Title
A deep convolutional neural network approach for predicting phenotypes from genotypes
Published in
Planta, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00425-018-2976-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenlong Ma, Zhixu Qiu, Jie Song, Jiajia Li, Qian Cheng, Jingjing Zhai, Chuang Ma

Abstract

Deep learning is a promising technology to accurately select individuals with high phenotypic values based on genotypic data. Genomic selection (GS) is a promising breeding strategy by which the phenotypes of plant individuals are usually predicted based on genome-wide markers of genotypes. In this study, we present a deep learning method, named DeepGS, to predict phenotypes from genotypes. Using a deep convolutional neural network, DeepGS uses hidden variables that jointly represent features in genotypes when making predictions; it also employs convolution, sampling and dropout strategies to reduce the complexity of high-dimensional genotypic data. We used a large GS dataset to train DeepGS and compared its performance with other methods. The experimental results indicate that DeepGS can be used as a complement to the commonly used RR-BLUP in the prediction of phenotypes from genotypes. The complementarity between DeepGS and RR-BLUP can be utilized using an ensemble learning approach for more accurately selecting individuals with high phenotypic values, even for the absence of outlier individuals and subsets of genotypic markers. The source codes of DeepGS and the ensemble learning approach have been packaged into Docker images for facilitating their applications in different GS programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 177 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 20%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 55 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 12%
Computer Science 20 11%
Engineering 6 3%
Unspecified 2 1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 61 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,542,971
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Planta
#1,882
of 2,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,072
of 331,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Planta
#17
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,742 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.