Learning Environment-Associated Marker Rankings with Attention-Based Graph Neural Networks
Morshedian, A.; Pasculescu, O.; Domaratzki, M.
Show abstract
Genotype-by-environment interactions can complicate plant breeding because genetic effects may vary across weather regimes, locations, and years. Although genomic prediction models can use dense marker data to predict complex crop traits, they often provide limited information about how marker relevance changes across environmental conditions. This study introduces a graph-based framework for estimating environment-associated marker rankings from multi-environment crop trial data. We introduce an attention-based graph neural network that jointly represents SNP markers and weather-based environment vectors as interacting nodes and is designed to learn environment-associated marker rankings from supervised yield data. The model is trained using yield prediction as the supervised objective, and the learned marker-level attention signals are aggregated to estimate marker rankings overall and within groups of similar environments. We evaluate the framework on two genotype-by-environment datasets. In both datasets, we examine whether learned marker rankings are stable across independent training runs and determine the overlap between high-ranked markers and external GWAS references. In a maize dataset with data from 212 different site-years, we rank markers separately within each weather-defined environment cluster and define a global marker set as the markers shared across all clusters. This provides a structured way to examine how marker rankings vary across weather-defined groups and which markers remain important across environments. We further encode each weather variable with a separate LSTM combined by attention, which makes the contribution of individual weather variables readable, and compare the resulting variable ranking against an independent SHAP-based attribution. Genes located near the top-ranked markers are also examined for functional enrichment. Overall, the results suggest that graph-based, environment-conditioned marker attribution may complement genomic prediction as an exploratory tool for studying context-dependent genomic signals in multi-environment trials.
Matching journals
The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparative analysis of genomic prediction approaches for multiple time-resolved traits in maize 95%
- Genomic approaches to build de novo elite breeding gene pools from locally-adapted landraces 93%
- Major effect loci for plant size before onset of nitrogen fixation allow accurate prediction of yield in white clover 92%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Leveraging prior biological knowledge improves prediction of tocochromanols in maize grain 91%
- Introducing CHiDO a No Code Genomic Prediction Software implementation for the Characterization & Integration of Driven Omics 91%
- Leveraging genomics and temporal high-throughput phenotyping to enhance association mapping and yield prediction in sesame 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Intercontinental prediction of soybean phenology via hybrid ensemble of knowledge-based and data-driven models 93%
- Multi-trait ensemble genomic prediction and simulations of recurrent selection highlight importance of complex trait genetic architecture in long-term genetic gains in wheat 92%
- A critical role of stable grain filling rate in maximizing rice yield revealed by whole plant carbon nitrogen interaction modeling 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Robust estimation of heritability and predictive accuracy in plant breeding: evaluation using simulation and empirical data 92%
- Genetic architecture of inter-specific and -generic grass hybrids by network analysis on multi-omics data 91%
- Genomic prediction using machine learning: A comparison of the performance of regularized regression, ensemble, instance-based and deep learning methods on synthetic and empirical data 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.