@article{PookFreudenthalKorteetal.2020, author = {Pook, Torsten and Freudenthal, Jan and Korte, Arthur and Simianer, Henner}, title = {Using Local Convolutional Neural Networks for Genomic Prediction}, series = {Frontiers in Genetics}, volume = {11}, journal = {Frontiers in Genetics}, doi = {10.3389/fgene.2020.561497}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-216436}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The prediction of breeding values and phenotypes is of central importance for both livestock and crop breeding. In this study, we analyze the use of artificial neural networks (ANN) and, in particular, local convolutional neural networks (LCNN) for genomic prediction, as a region-specific filter corresponds much better with our prior genetic knowledge on the genetic architecture of traits than traditional convolutional neural networks. Model performances are evaluated on a simulated maize data panel (n = 10,000; p = 34,595) and real Arabidopsis data (n = 2,039; p = 180,000) for a variety of traits based on their predictive ability. The baseline LCNN, containing one local convolutional layer (kernel size: 10) and two fully connected layers with 64 nodes each, is outperforming commonly proposed ANNs (multi layer perceptrons and convolutional neural networks) for basically all considered traits. For traits with high heritability and large training population as present in the simulated data, LCNN are even outperforming state-of-the-art methods like genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), Bayesian models and extended GBLUP, indicated by an increase in predictive ability of up to 24\%. However, for small training populations, these state-of-the-art methods outperform all considered ANNs. Nevertheless, the LCNN still outperforms all other considered ANNs by around 10\%. Minor improvements to the tested baseline network architecture of the LCNN were obtained by increasing the kernel size and of reducing the stride, whereas the number of subsequent fully connected layers and their node sizes had neglectable impact. Although gains in predictive ability were obtained for large scale data sets by using LCNNs, the practical use of ANNs comes with additional problems, such as the need of genotyping all considered individuals, the lack of estimation of heritability and reliability. Furthermore, breeding values are additive by design, whereas ANN-based estimates are not. However, ANNs also comes with new opportunities, as networks can easily be extended to account for additional inputs (omics, weather etc.) and outputs (multi-trait models), and computing time increases linearly with the number of individuals. With advances in high-throughput phenotyping and cheaper genotyping, ANNs can become a valid alternative for genomic prediction.}, language = {en} } @article{FukushimaPollock2020, author = {Fukushima, Kenji and Pollock, David D.}, title = {Amalgamated cross-species transcriptomes reveal organ-specific propensity in gene expression evolution}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {11,}, journal = {Nature Communications}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-020-18090-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-230468}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The origins of multicellular physiology are tied to evolution of gene expression. Genes can shift expression as organisms evolve, but how ancestral expression influences altered descendant expression is not well understood. To examine this, we amalgamate 1,903 RNA-seq datasets from 182 research projects, including 6 organs in 21 vertebrate species. Quality control eliminates project-specific biases, and expression shifts are reconstructed using gene-family-wise phylogenetic Ornstein-Uhlenbeck models. Expression shifts following gene duplication result in more drastic changes in expression properties than shifts without gene duplication. The expression properties are tightly coupled with protein evolutionary rate, depending on whether and how gene duplication occurred. Fluxes in expression patterns among organs are nonrandom, forming modular connections that are reshaped by gene duplication. Thus, if expression shifts, ancestral expression in some organs induces a strong propensity for expression in particular organs in descendants. Regardless of whether the shifts are adaptive or not, this supports a major role for what might be termed preadaptive pathways of gene expression evolution.}, language = {en} } @article{MollRocesFederle2013, author = {Moll, Karin and Roces, Flavio and Federle, Walter}, title = {How Load-Carrying Ants Avoid Falling Over: Mechanical Stability during Foraging in Atta vollenweideri Grass-Cutting Ants}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {8}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0052816}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-131211}, pages = {e52816}, year = {2013}, abstract = {Background: Foraging workers of grass-cutting ants (Atta vollenweideri) regularly carry grass fragments larger than their Fragment length has been shown to influence the ants' running speed and thereby the colony's food intake rate. We investigated whether and how grass-cutting ants maintain stability when carrying fragments of two different lengths but identical mass. Principal Findings: Ants carried all fragments in an upright, backwards-tilted position, but held long fragments more vertically than short ones. All carrying ants used an alternating tripod gait, where mechanical stability was increased by overlapping stance phases of consecutive steps. The overlap was greatest for ants carrying long fragments, resulting in more legs contacting the ground simultaneously. For all ants, the projection of the total centre of mass (ant and fragment) was often outside the supporting tripod, i.e. the three feet that would be in stance for a non-overlapping tripod gait. Stability was only achieved through additional legs in ground contact. Tripod stability (quantified as the minimum distance of the centre of mass to the edge of the supporting tripod) was significantly smaller for ants with long fragments. Here, tripod stability was lowest at the beginning of each step, when the center of mass was near the posterior margin of the supporting tripod. By contrast, tripod stability was lowest at the end of each step for ants carrying short fragments. Consistently, ants with long fragments mainly fell backwards, whereas ants carrying short fragments mainly fell forwards or to the side. Assuming that transporting ants adjust neither the fragment angle nor the gait, they would be less stable and more likely to fall over. Conclusions: In grass-cutting ants, the need to maintain static stability when carrying long grass fragments has led to multiple kinematic adjustments at the expense of a reduced material transport rate.}, language = {en} } @article{CouchWangMcGuffogetal.2013, author = {Couch, Fergus J. and Wang, Xianshu and McGuffog, Lesley and Lee, Andrew and Olswold, Curtis and Kuchenbaecker, Karoline B. and Soucy, Penny and Fredericksen, Zachary and Barrowdale, Daniel and Dennis, Joe and Gaudet, Mia M. and Dicks, Ed and Kosel, Matthew and Healey, Sue and Sinilnikova, Olga M. and Lee, Adam and Bacot, Fran{\c{c}}ios and Vincent, Daniel and Hogervorst, Frans B. L. and Peock, Susan and Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique and Jakubowska, Anna and Radice, Paolo and Schmutzler, Rita Katharina and Domchek, Susan M. and Piedmonte, Marion and Singer, Christian F. and Friedman, Eitan and Thomassen, Mads and Hansen, Thomas V. O. and Neuhausen, Susan L. and Szabo, Csilla I. and Blanco, Ingnacio and Greene, Mark H. and Karlan, Beth Y. and Garber, Judy and Phelan, Catherine M. and Weitzel, Jeffrey N. and Montagna, Marco and Olah, Edith and Andrulis, Irene L. and Godwin, Andrew K. and Yannoukakos, Drakoulis and Goldgar, David E. and Caldes, Trinidad and Nevanlinna, Heli and Osorio, Ana and Terry, Mary Beth and Daly, Mary B. and van Rensburg, Elisabeth J. and Hamann, Ute and Ramus, Susan J. and Toland, Amanda Ewart and Caligo, Maria A. and Olopade, Olufunmilayo I. and Tung, Nadine and Claes, Kathleen and Beattie, Mary S. and Southey, Melissa C. and Imyanitov, Evgeny N. and Tischkowitz, Marc and Janavicius, Ramunas and John, Esther M. and Kwong, Ava and Diez, Orland and Kwong, Ava and Balma{\~n}a, Judith and Barkardottir, Rosa B. and Arun, Banu K. and Rennert, Gad and Teo, Soo-Hwang and Ganz, Patricia A. and Campbell, Ian and van der Hout, Annemarie H. and van Deurzen, Carolien H. M. and Seynaeve, Caroline and Garcia, Encarna B. G{\´o}mez and van Leeuwen, Flora E. and Meijers-Heijboer, Hanne E. J. and Gille, Johannes J. P. and Ausems, Magreet G. E. M. and Blok, Marinus J. and Ligtenberg, Marjolinjin J. L. and Rookus, Matti A. and Devilee, Peter and Verhoef, Senno and van Os, Theo A. M. and Wijnen, Juul T. and Frost, Debra and Ellis, Steve and Fineberg, Elena and Platte, Radke and Evans, D. Gareth and Izatt, Luise and Eeles, Rosalind A. and Adlard, Julian and Eccles, Diana M. and Cook, Jackie and Brewer, Carole and Douglas, Fiona and Hodgson, Shirley and Morrison, Patrick J. and Side, Lucy E. and Donaldson, Alan and Houghton, Catherine and Rogers, Mark T. and Dorkins, Huw and Eason, Jacqueline and Gregory, Helen and McCann, Emma and Murray, Alex and Calender, Alain and Hardouin, Agn{\`e}s and Berthet, Pascaline and Delnatte, Capucine and Nogues, Catherine and Lasset, Christine and Houdayer, Claude and Leroux,, Dominique and Rouleau, Etienne and Prieur, Fabienne and Damiola, Francesca and Sobol, Hagay and Coupier, Isabelle and Venat-Bouvet, Laurence and Castera, Laurent and Gauthier-Villars, Marion and L{\´e}on{\´e}, M{\´e}lanie and Pujol, Pascal and Mazoyer, Sylvie and Bignon, Yves-Jean and Zlowocka-Perlowska, Elzbieta and Gronwald, Jacek and Lubinski,, Jan and Durda, Katarzyna and Jaworska, Katarzyna and Huzarski, Tomasz and Spurdle, Amanda B. and Viel, Alessandra and Peissel, Bernhard and Bonanni, Bernardo and Melloni, Guilia and Ottini, Laura and Papi, Laura and Varesco, Liliana and Tibiletti, Maria Grazia and Peterlongo, Paolo and Volorio, Sara and Manoukian, Siranoush and Pensotti, Valeria and Arnold, Norbert and Engel, Christoph and Deissler, Helmut and Gadzicki, Dorothea and Gehrig, Andrea and Kast, Karin and Rhiem, Kerstin and Meindl, Alfons and Niederacher, Dieter and Ditsch, Nina and Plendl, Hansjoerg and Preisler-Adams, Sabine and Engert, Stefanie and Sutter, Christian and Varon-Mateeva, Raymenda and Wappenschmidt, Barbara and Weber, Bernhard H. F. and Arver, Brita and Stenmark-Askmalm, Marie and Loman, Niklas and Rosenquist, Richard and Einbeigi, Zakaria and Nathanson, Katherine L. and Rebbeck, Timothy R. and Blank, Stephanie V. and Cohn, David E. and Rodriguez, Gustavo C. and Small, Laurie and Friedlander, Michael and Bae-Jump, Victoria L. and Fink-Retter, Anneliese and Rappaport, Christine and Gschwantler-Kaulich, Daphne and Pfeiler, Georg and Tea, Muy-Kheng and Lindor, Noralane M. and Kaufman, Bella and Paluch, Shani Shimon and Laitman, Yael and Skytte, Anne-Bine and Gerdes, Anne-Marie and Pedersen, Inge Sokilde and Moeller, Sanne Traasdahl and Kruse, Torben A. and Jensen, Uffe Birk and Vijai, Joseph and Sarrel, Kara and Robson, Mark and Kauff, Noah and Mulligan, Anna Marie and Glendon, Gord and Ozcelik, Hilmi and Ejlertsen, Bent and Nielsen, Finn C. and J{\o}nson, Lars and Andersen, Mette K. and Ding, Yuan Chun and Steele, Linda and Foretova, Lenka and Teul{\´e}, Alex and Lazaro, Conxi and Brunet, Joan and Pujana, Miquel Angel and Mai, Phuong L. and Loud, Jennifer T. and Walsh, Christine and Lester, Jenny and Orsulic, Sandra and Narod, Steven A. and Herzog, Josef and Sand, Sharon R. and Tognazzo, Silvia and Agata, Simona and Vaszko, Tibor and Weaver, Joellen and Stravropoulou, Alexandra V. and Buys, Saundra S. and Romero, Atocha and de la Hoya, Miguel and Aittom{\"a}ki, Kristiina and Muranen, Taru A. and Duran, Mercedes and Chung, Wendy K. and Lasa, Adriana and Dorfling, Cecilia M. and Miron, Alexander and Benitez, Javier and Senter, Leigha and Huo, Dezheng and Chan, Salina B. and Sokolenko, Anna P. and Chiquette, Jocelyne and Tihomirova, Laima and Friebel, Tara M. and Agnarsson, Bjarne A. and Lu, Karen H. and Lejbkowicz, Flavio and James, Paul A. and Hall, Per and Dunning, Alison M. and Tessier, Daniel and Cunningham, Julie and Slager, Susan L. and Chen, Wang and Hart, Steven and Stevens, Kristen and Simard, Jacques and Pastinen, Tomi and Pankratz, Vernon S. and Offit, Kenneth and Easton, Douglas F. and Chenevix-Trench, Georgia and Antoniou, Antonis C.}, title = {Genome-Wide Association Study in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers Identifies Novel Loci Associated with Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk}, series = {PLOS Genetics}, volume = {9}, journal = {PLOS Genetics}, number = {3}, issn = {1553-7404}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pgen.1003212}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-127947}, pages = {e1003212}, year = {2013}, abstract = {BRCA1-associated breast and ovarian cancer risks can be modified by common genetic variants. To identify further cancer risk-modifying loci, we performed a multi-stage GWAS of 11,705 BRCA1 carriers (of whom 5,920 were diagnosed with breast and 1,839 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer), with a further replication in an additional sample of 2,646 BRCA1 carriers. We identified a novel breast cancer risk modifier locus at 1q32 for BRCA1 carriers (rs2290854, P = 2.7 x 10(-8), HR = 1.14, 95\% CI: 1.09-1.20). In addition, we identified two novel ovarian cancer risk modifier loci: 17q21.31 (rs17631303, P = 1.4 x 10(-8), HR = 1.27, 95\% CI: 1.17-1.38) and 4q32.3 (rs4691139, P = 3.4 x 10(-8), HR = 1.20, 95\% CI: 1.17-1.38). The 4q32.3 locus was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population or BRCA2 carriers, suggesting a BRCA1-specific association. The 17q21.31 locus was also associated with ovarian cancer risk in 8,211 BRCA2 carriers (P = 2 x 10(-4)). These loci may lead to an improved understanding of the etiology of breast and ovarian tumors in BRCA1 carriers. Based on the joint distribution of the known BRCA1 breast cancer risk-modifying loci, we estimated that the breast cancer lifetime risks for the 5\% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk are 28\%-50\% compared to 81\%-100\% for the 5\% at highest risk. Similarly, based on the known ovarian cancer risk-modifying loci, the 5\% of BRCA1 carriers at lowest risk have an estimated lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of 28\% or lower, whereas the 5\% at highest risk will have a risk of 63\% or higher. Such differences in risk may have important implications for risk prediction and clinical management for BRCA1 carriers.}, language = {en} } @article{WaeschkeHardgeHancocketal.2014, author = {W{\"a}schke, Nicole and Hardge, Kerstin and Hancock, Christine and Hilker, Monika and Obermaier, Elisabeth and Meiners, Torsten}, title = {Odour Environments: How Does Plant Diversity Affect Herbivore and Parasitoid Orientation?}, series = {PlOS ONE}, volume = {9}, journal = {PlOS ONE}, number = {1}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0085152}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-117687}, pages = {e85152}, year = {2014}, abstract = {Plant diversity is known to affect success of host location by pest insects, but its effect on olfactory orientation of non-pest insect species has hardly been addressed. First, we tested in laboratory experiments the hypothesis that non-host plants, which increase odour complexity in habitats, affect the host location ability of herbivores and parasitoids. Furthermore, we recorded field data of plant diversity in addition to herbivore and parasitoid abundance at 77 grassland sites in three different regions in Germany in order to elucidate whether our laboratory results reflect the field situation. As a model system we used the herb Plantago lanceolata, the herbivorous weevil Mecinus pascuorum, and its larval parasitoid Mesopolobus incultus. The laboratory bioassays revealed that both the herbivorous weevil and its larval parasitoid can locate their host plant and host via olfactory cues even in the presence of non-host odour. In a newly established two-circle olfactometer, the weevils capability to detect host plant odour was not affected by odours from non-host plants. However, addition of non-host plant odours to host plant odour enhanced the weevils foraging activity. The parasitoid was attracted by a combination of host plant and host volatiles in both the absence and presence of non-host plant volatiles in a Y-tube olfactometer. In dual choice tests the parasitoid preferred the blend of host plant and host volatiles over its combination with non-host plant volatiles. In the field, no indication was found that high plant diversity disturbs host (plant) location by the weevil and its parasitoid. In contrast, plant diversity was positively correlated with weevil abundance, whereas parasitoid abundance was independent of plant diversity. Therefore, we conclude that weevils and parasitoids showed the sensory capacity to successfully cope with complex vegetation odours when searching for hosts.}, language = {en} }