Multi-trait and multi-environment data are common in animal and plant breeding programs. However, what is lacking are more powerful statistical models that can exploit the correlation between traits to improve prediction accuracy in the context of genomic selection (GS). Multi-trait models are more complex than univariate models and usually require more computational resources, but they are preferred because they can exploit the correlation between traits, which many times helps improve prediction accuracy. For this reason, in this paper we explore the power of multi-trait deep learning (MTDL) models in terms of prediction accuracy. The prediction performance of MTDL models was compared to the performance of the Bayesian multi-trait and multi-environment (BMTME) model proposed by Montesinos-López et al. (2016), which is a multi-trait version of the genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) univariate model. Both models were evaluated with predictors with and without the genotype×environment interaction term. The prediction performance of both models was evaluated in terms of Pearson’s correlation using cross-validation. We found that the best predictions in two of the three data sets were found under the BMTME model, but in general the predictions of both models, BTMTE and MTDL, were similar. Among models without the genotype×environment interaction, the MTDL model was the best, while among models with genotype×environment interaction, the BMTME model was superior. These results indicate that the MTDL model is very competitive for performing predictions in the context of GS, with the important practical advantage that it requires less computational resources than the BMTME model.

Genomic selection is revolutionizing plant breeding. However, still lacking are better statistical models for ordinal phenotypes to improve the accuracy of the selection of candidate genotypes. For this reason, in this paper we explore the genomic based prediction performance of two popular machine learning methods: the Multi Layer Perceptron (MLP) and support vector machine (SVM) methods vs. the Bayesian threshold genomic best linear unbiased prediction (TGBLUP) model. We used the percentage of cases correctly classified (PCCC) as a metric to measure the prediction performance, and seven real data sets to evaluate the prediction accuracy, and found that the best predictions (in four out of the seven data sets) in terms of PCCC occurred under the TGLBUP model, while the worst occurred under the SVM method. Also, in general we found no statistical differences between using 1, 2 and 3 layers under the MLP models, which means that many times the conventional neuronal network model with only one layer is enough. However, although even that the TGBLUP model was better, we found that the predictions of MLP and SVM were very competitive with the advantage that the SVM was the most efficient in terms of the computational time required.

Multiple-trait experiments with mixed phenotypes (binary, ordinal and continuous) are not rare in animal and plant breeding programs. However, there is a lack of statistical models that can exploit the correlation between traits with mixed phenotypes in order to improve prediction accuracy in the context of genomic selection (GS). For this reason, when breeders have mixed phenotypes, they usually analyze them using univariate models, and thus are not able to exploit the correlation between traits, which many times helps improve prediction accuracy. In this paper we propose applying deep learning for analyzing multiple traits with mixed phenotype data in terms of prediction accuracy. The prediction performance of multiple-trait deep learning with mixed phenotypes (MTDLMP) models was compared to the performance of univariate deep learning (UDL) models. Both models were evaluated using predictors with and without the genotype × environment (G×E) interaction term (I and WI, respectively). The metric used for evaluating prediction accuracy was Pearson’s correlation for continuous traits and the percentage of cases correctly classified (PCCC) for binary and ordinal traits. We found that a modest gain in prediction accuracy was obtained only in the continuous trait under the MTDLMP model compared to the UDL model, whereas for the other traits (1 binary and 2 ordinal) we did not find any difference between the two models. In both models we observed that the prediction performance was better for WI than for I. The MTDLMP model is a good alternative for performing simultaneous predictions of mixed phenotypes (binary, ordinal and continuous) in the context of GS.

Design: A randomized controlled trial. Objective: To investigate the immediate effects on pressure pain thresholds over latent trigger points (TrPs) in the masseter and temporalis muscles and active mouth opening following atlanto-occipital joint thrust manipulation or a soft tissue manual intervention targeted to the suboccipital muscles. Background: Previous studies have described hypoalgesic effects of neck manipulative interventions over TrPs in the cervical musculature. There is a lack of studies analyzing these mechanisms over TrPs of muscles innervated by the trigeminal nerve. Methods: One hundred twenty-two volunteers, 31 men and 91 women, between the ages of 18 and 30 years, with latent TrPs in the masseter muscle, were randomly divided into 3 groups: a manipulative group who received an atlanto-occipital joint thrust, a soft tissue group who received an inhibition technique over the suboccipital muscles, and a control group who did not receive an intervention. Pressure pain thresholds over latent TrPs in the masseter and temporalis muscles, and active mouth opening were assessed pretreatment and 2 minutes posttreatment by a blinded assessor. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVA) were used to examine the effects of interventions on each outcome, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction. Results: The 2-by-3 mixed-model ANOVA revealed a significant group-by-time interaction for changes in pressure pain thresholds over masseter (P<.01) and temporalis (P = .003) muscle latent TrPs and also for active mouth opening (P<.001) in favor of the manipulative and soft tissue groups. Between-group effect sizes were small. Conclusions: The application of an atlanto-occipital thrust manipulation or soft tissue technique targeted to the suboccipital muscles led to an immediate increase in pressure pain thresholds over latent TrPs in the masseter and temporalis muscles and an increase in maximum active mouth opening. Nevertheless, the effects of both interventions were small and future studies are required to elucidate the clinical relevance of these changes. Level of Evidence: Therapy, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010;40(5):310–317. doi:10.2519/jospt.2010.3257

The Balearic lizard, Podarcis lilfordi, is present in 43 insular populations in the Cabrera archipelago and around the coasts of Mallorca and Menorca islands (Spain). We studied lizard densities over the entire range of distribution, analyzing observed differences of density in relation to island area, habitat diversity, availability of resources, presence of predators, competitors and human disturbances. The density of the Balearic lizard varies from less than 35 to almost 8000 lizards ha–1, with an average of around 1500 lizards ha–1. In some very small islets we detected no more than 10 individuals. Using a subsample of nine coastal islets (Menorca) we did not find any significant correlation between ground arthropod biomass and lizard density. The combination of island area and its maximal altitude, its so-called biotic capacity, was also uncorrelated with lizard density. In addition, neither degree of island accessibility nor presence/absence of seagull breeding colonies, were able to explain lizard densities. Islands without ship rats (Rattus rattus) showed a significantly higher lizard density, but islands in which rat eradication programs were launched during the study period, showed lower densities than those with rats but no eradication actions. Genetic variability was significantly higher on bigger lizard populations, lacking a correlation with lizard densities. No single independent variable can explain density differences among populations under study. Our results are discussed in the light of available hypotheses on factors affecting population densities.