↓ Skip to main content

An adaptive threshold determination method of feature screening for genomic selection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An adaptive threshold determination method of feature screening for genomic selection
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1617-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guifang Fu, Gang Wang, Xiaotian Dai

Abstract

Although the dimension of the entire genome can be extremely large, only a parsimonious set of influential SNPs are correlated with a particular complex trait and are important to the prediction of the trait. Efficiently and accurately selecting these influential SNPs from millions of candidates is in high demand, but poses challenges. We propose a backward elimination iterative distance correlation (BE-IDC) procedure to select the smallest subset of SNPs that guarantees sufficient prediction accuracy, while also solving the unclear threshold issue for traditional feature screening approaches. Verified through six simulations, the adaptive threshold estimated by the BE-IDC performed uniformly better than fixed threshold methods that have been used in the current literature. We also applied BE-IDC to an Arabidopsis thaliana genome-wide data. Out of 216,130 SNPs, BE-IDC selected four influential SNPs, and confirmed the same FRIGIDA gene that was reported by two other traditional methods. BE-IDC accommodates both the prediction accuracy and the computational speed that are highly demanded in the genomic selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 21%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Librarian 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Computer Science 1 5%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,453,139
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,390
of 7,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,569
of 310,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#85
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.