title: Predicting expected progeny difference for marbling score in Angus cattle using artificial neural networks and Bayesian regression models.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Artificial neural networks (ANN) mimic the function of the human brain and are capable of performing massively parallel computations for data processing and knowledge representation. ANN can capture nonlinear relationships between predictors and responses and can adaptively learn complex functional forms, in particular, for situations where conventional regression models are ineffective. In a previous study, ANN with Bayesian regularization outperformed a benchmark linear model when predicting milk yield in dairy cattle or grain yield of wheat. Although breeding values rely on the assumption of additive inheritance, the predictive capabilities of ANN are of interest from the perspective of their potential to increase the accuracy of prediction of molecular breeding values used for genomic selection. This motivated the present study, in which the aim was to investigate the accuracy of ANN when predicting the expected progeny difference (EPD) of marbling score in Angus cattle. Various ANN architectures were explored, which involved two training algorithms, two types of activation functions, and from 1 to 4 neurons in hidden layers. For comparison, BayesCπ models were used to select a subset of optimal markers (referred to as feature selection), under the assumption of additive inheritance, and then the marker effects were estimated using BayesCπ with π set equal to zero. This procedure is referred to as BayesCpC and was implemented on a high-throughput computing cluster.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The ANN with Bayesian regularization method performed equally well for prediction of EPD as BayesCpC, based on prediction accuracy and sum of squared errors. With the 3K-SNP panel, for example, prediction accuracy was 0.776 using BayesCpC, and ranged from 0.776 to 0.807 using BRANN. With the selected 700-SNP panel, prediction accuracy was 0.863 for BayesCpC and ranged from 0.842 to 0.858 for BRANN. However, prediction accuracy for the ANN with scaled conjugate gradient back-propagation was lower, ranging from 0.653 to 0.689 with the 3K-SNP panel, and from 0.743 to 0.793 with the selected 700-SNP panel.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  ANN with Bayesian regularization performed as well as linear Bayesian regression models in predicting additive genetic values, supporting the idea that ANN are useful as universal approximators of functions of interest in breeding contexts.
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA. okut.hayrettin@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Hayrettin
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Okut
authors.forename: Xiao-Liao
authors.initials: XL
authors.lastname: Wu
authors.forename: Guilherme J M
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Rosa
authors.forename: Stewart
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bauck
authors.forename: Brent W
authors.initials: BW
authors.lastname: Woodward
authors.forename: Robert D
authors.initials: RD
authors.lastname: Schnabel
authors.forename: Jeremy F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Taylor
authors.forename: Daniel
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Gianola
mesh_terms: D000465:Algorithms; D000818:Animals; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D001947:Breeding; D002417:Cattle / Q000235:genetics*; D016678:Genome; D005838:Genotype; D006801:Humans; D016014:Linear Models; D008957:Models, Genetic; D016571:Neural Networks, Computer; D020641:Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; D019655:Quantitative Trait, Heritable
references.citation: Food Microbiol. 2006 Sep;23(6):561-70
references.pmid: 16943052
references.citation: Front Genet. 2011 Feb 24;2:4
references.pmid: 22303303
references.citation: Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
references.pmid: 11290733
references.citation: Genet Res (Camb). 2010 Jun;92(3):209-25
references.pmid: 20667165
references.citation: BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 May 23;12:186
references.pmid: 21605355
references.citation: Genet Sel Evol. 2009 Dec 31;41:55
references.pmid: 20043827
references.citation: Genet Res (Camb). 2011 Jun;93(3):189-201
references.pmid: 21481292
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e34130
references.pmid: 22470530
references.citation: J Mol Graph Model. 2004 Jul;22(6):499-505
references.pmid: 15182809
references.citation: BMC Genet. 2011 Oct 07;12:87
references.pmid: 21981731
references.citation: Genetics. 2009 Sep;183(1):347-63
references.pmid: 19620397
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 2009 Jun;87(6):1883-7
references.pmid: 19213705
references.citation: Adv Genet. 2010;72:101-16
references.pmid: 21029850
references.citation: Genet Sel Evol. 2011 Nov 09;43:38
references.pmid: 22070746
references.citation: Neural Netw. 2001 Apr;14(3):257-74
references.pmid: 11341565
references.citation: Genetica. 2010 Oct;138(9-10):959-77
references.pmid: 20737196
references.citation: BMC Genomics. 2012 Nov 09;13:606
references.pmid: 23140540
references.citation: Genetics. 2006 Jul;173(3):1761-76
references.pmid: 16648593
references.citation: Genetics. 2009 Nov;183(3):1119-26
references.pmid: 19704013
references.citation: BMC Proc. 2007;1 Suppl 1:S47
references.pmid: 18466546
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2009 Oct 1;25(19):2478-85
references.pmid: 19608708
references.citation: Photochem Photobiol. 2004 Sep-Oct;80(2):351-8
references.pmid: 15362949
references.citation: Genet Sel Evol. 2012 Sep 25;44:29
references.pmid: 23009363
references.citation: Genetics. 2008 Apr;178(4):2289-303
references.pmid: 18430950