↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of Complex Traits: Robust Alternatives to Best Linear Unbiased Prediction

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prediction of Complex Traits: Robust Alternatives to Best Linear Unbiased Prediction
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2018.00195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Gianola, Alessio Cecchinato, Hugo Naya, Chris-Carolin Schön

Abstract

A widely used method for prediction of complex traits in animal and plant breeding is "genomic best linear unbiased prediction" (GBLUP). In a quantitative genetics setting, BLUP is a linear regression of phenotypes on a pedigree or on a genomic relationship matrix, depending on the type of input information available. Normality of the distributions of random effects and of model residuals is not required for BLUP but a Gaussian assumption is made implicitly. A potential downside is that Gaussian linear regressions are sensitive to outliers, genetic or environmental in origin. We present simple (relative to a fully Bayesian analysis) to implement robust alternatives to BLUP using a linear model with residual t or Laplace distributions instead of a Gaussian one, and evaluate the methods with milk yield records on Italian Brown Swiss cattle, grain yield data in inbred wheat lines, and using three traits measured on accessions of Arabidopsis thaliana. The methods do not use Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling and model hyper-parameters, viewed here as regularization "knobs," are tuned via some cross-validation. Uncertainty of predictions are evaluated by employing bootstrapping or by random reconstruction of training and testing sets. It was found (e.g., test-day milk yield in cows, flowering time and FRIGIDA expression in Arabidopsis) that the best predictions were often those obtained with the robust methods. The results obtained are encouraging and stimulate further investigation and generalization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 25%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Professor 5 6%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 10%
Mathematics 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 June 2018.
All research outputs
#6,237,952
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,834
of 12,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,969
of 329,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#31
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,135 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 329,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.