Accurate prediction of the phenotypic outcomes produced by different combinations of genotypes, environments, and management interventions remains a key goal in biology with direct applications to agriculture, research, and conservation. The past decades have seen an expansion of new methods applied towards this goal. Here we predict maize yield using deep neural networks, compare the efficacy of two model development methods, and contextualize model performance using conventional linear and machine learning models. We examine the usefulness of incorporating interactions between disparate data types. We find deep learning and BLUP models with interactions had the best overall performance. BLUP models achieved the lowest average error, but deep learning models performed more consistently with similar average error. Optimizing deep neural network submodules for each datatype improved model performance relative to optimizing the whole model for all data types at once. Examining the effect of interactions in the best performing model revealed that including interactions altered the model’s sensitivity to weather and management features, including a reduction of the importance scores for timepoints expected to have limited physiological basis for influencing yield – those at the extreme end of the season, nearly 200 days post planting. Based on these results, deep learning provides a promising avenue for phenotypic prediction of complex traits in complex environments and a potential mechanism to better understand the influence of environmental and genetic factors.

The Large Cell (LC) motor neurons of the crab cardiac ganglion have variable membrane conductance magnitudes even within the same individual, yet produce identical synchronized activity in the intact network. In a previous study we blocked a subset of K+ conductances across LCs, resulting in loss of synchronous activity (Lane et al., 2016). In this study, we hypothesized that this same variability of conductances makes LCs vulnerable to desynchronization during neuromodulation. We exposed the LCs to serotonin (5HT) and dopamine (DA) while recording simultaneously from multiple LCs. Both amines had distinct excitatory effects on LC output, but only 5HT caused desynchronized output. We further determined that DA rapidly increased gap junctional conductance. Co-application of both amines induced 5HT-like output, but waveforms remained synchronized. Furthermore, DA prevented desynchronization induced by the K+ channel blocker tetraethylammonium (TEA), suggesting that dopaminergic modulation of electrical coupling plays a protective role in maintaining network synchrony.

Understanding circuit organization depends on identification of cell types. Recent advances in transcriptional profiling methods have enabled classification of cell types by their gene expression. While exceptionally powerful and high throughput, the ground-truth validation of these methods is difficult: If cell type is unknown, how does one assess whether a given analysis accurately captures neuronal identity? To shed light on the capabilities and limitations of solely using transcriptional profiling for cell-type classification, we performed 2 forms of transcriptional profiling—RNA-seq and quantitative RT-PCR, in single, unambiguously identified neurons from 2 small crustacean neuronal networks: The stomatogastric and cardiac ganglia. We then combined our knowledge of cell type with unbiased clustering analyses and supervised machine learning to determine how accurately functionally defined neuron types can be classified by expression profile alone. The results demonstrate that expression profile is able to capture neuronal identity most accurately when combined with multimodal information that allows for post hoc grouping, so analysis can proceed from a supervised perspective. Solely unsupervised clustering can lead to misidentification and an inability to distinguish between 2 or more cell types. Therefore, this study supports the general utility of cell identification by transcriptional profiling, but adds a caution: It is difficult or impossible to know under what conditions transcriptional profiling alone is capable of assigning cell identity. Only by combining multiple modalities of information such as physiology, morphology, or innervation target can neuronal identity be unambiguously determined.