• Login
    • Login
    Advanced Search
    View Item 
    •   UoN Digital Repository Home
    • Journal Articles
    • Faculty of Science & Technology (FST)
    • View Item
    •   UoN Digital Repository Home
    • Journal Articles
    • Faculty of Science & Technology (FST)
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    A comparison of random forests, boosting and support vector machines for genomic selection.

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Full Text.pdf (299.2Kb)
    Date
    2011
    Author
    Ogutu, JO
    Piepho, HP
    Schulz-Streeck, T
    Type
    Article
    Language
    en
    Metadata
    Show full item record

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: Genomic selection (GS) involves estimating breeding values using molecular markers spanning the entire genome. Accurate prediction of genomic breeding values (GEBVs) presents a central challenge to contemporary plant and animal breeders. The existence of a wide array of marker-based approaches for predicting breeding values makes it essential to evaluate and compare their relative predictive performances to identify approaches able to accurately predict breeding values. We evaluated the predictive accuracy of random forests (RF), stochastic gradient boosting (boosting) and support vector machines (SVMs) for predicting genomic breeding values using dense SNP markers and explored the utility of RF for ranking the predictive importance of markers for pre-screening markers or discovering chromosomal locations of QTLs. METHODS: We predicted GEBVs for one quantitative trait in a dataset simulated for the QTLMAS 2010 workshop. Predictive accuracy was measured as the Pearson correlation between GEBVs and observed values using 5-fold cross-validation and between predicted and true breeding values. The importance of each marker was ranked using RF and plotted against the position of the marker and associated QTLs on one of five simulated chromosomes. RESULTS: The correlations between the predicted and true breeding values were 0.547 for boosting, 0.497 for SVMs, and 0.483 for RF, indicating better performance for boosting than for SVMs and RF. CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy was highest for boosting, intermediate for SVMs and lowest for RF but differed little among the three methods and relative to ridge regression BLUP (RR-BLUP).
    URI
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21624167
    http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/58249
    Citation
    BMC Proc. 2011 May 27;5 Suppl 3:S11. doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-5-S3-S11.
    Publisher
    University of Nairobi
     
    School of Computing and Informatics
     
    Collections
    • Faculty of Science & Technology (FST) [4284]

    Copyright © 2022 
    University of Nairobi Library
    Contact Us | Send Feedback

     

     

    Useful Links
    UON HomeLibrary HomeKLISC

    Browse

    All of UoN Digital RepositoryCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Copyright © 2022 
    University of Nairobi Library
    Contact Us | Send Feedback