Back

Integrating longitudinal hyperspectral phenotyping with AI and GWAS to dissect barley waterlogging responses

Bernad, V.; Walsh, J. J.; Jacob, E.; Khodaeiaminjan, M.; Zhang, N.; Wang, K.; Fadaei, F.; Craig, L.; Barreto-Souza, W.; Mangina, E.; Gutierrez, L.; Negrao, S.

2026-06-05 plant biology
10.64898/2026.06.02.729597 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Waterlogging is a major constraint on barley productivity, yet its dynamic, multi-phase nature makes it challenging to dissect using traditional phenotyping approaches. High-throughput phenotyping (HTP) platforms address this by enabling temporal, multi-sensor imaging of large populations, but generate complex datasets that demand new analytical frameworks. Here, we imaged 230 barley accessions over 14 days of waterlogging stress and seven days of recovery using visible, chlorophyll fluorescence, and hyperspectral sensors. Explainable AI was applied to classify stress responses into early stress, late stress, and recovery phases, achieving 86% classification accuracy, and to identify the hyperspectral indices most informative for each phase. Water index (WATER1) and structure insensitive pigment index (SIPI) emerged as primary predictors of stress response. Longitudinal genome-wide association studies (GWAS), using a treatment-by-marker interaction model, identified 236 significant loci across 12 linkage disequilibrium blocks, implicating candidate genes involved in oxidative stress regulation, transcriptional control, and auxin transport. MYB transcription factors were consistently identified across all stress phases, underscoring their central role in waterlogging adaptation. To support interpretation of longitudinal GWAS results, we developed 3D-QTLVis, an interactive visualisation tool that extends Manhattan plots across time, enabling clearer identification of dynamic genomic regions underlying stress tolerance.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
22.0%
2
Journal of Experimental Botany
219 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
9.6%
3
Frontiers in Plant Science
256 papers in training set
Top 1%
7.2%
4
Plant Phenomics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.1%
5
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 29%
5.1%
6
Plant Biotechnology Journal
64 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.1%
50% of probability mass above
7
Plant Physiology
238 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
8
The Plant Journal
215 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.3%
9
The Plant Phenome Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
10
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.4%
11
Plant Direct
95 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
12
The Plant Genome
57 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
13
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
14
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
15
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 59%
1.5%
17
The Plant Cell
161 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
18
Plant Communications
36 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
Plant Stress
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
20
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 26%
1.1%
22
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
23
Horticulture Research
47 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
24
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.9%
25
BMC Plant Biology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.8%