Automated SNP detection from a large collection of white spruce expressed sequences: contributing factors and approaches for the categorization of SNPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-throughput genotyping technologies represent a highly efficient way to accelerate genetic mapping and enable association studies. As a first step toward this goal, we aimed to develop a resource of candidate Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) in white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss), a softwood tree of major economic importance. RESULTS: A white spruce SNP resource encompassing 12,264 SNPs was constructed from a set of 6,459 contigs derived from Expressed Sequence Tags (EST) and by using the bayesian-based statistical software PolyBayes. Several parameters influencing the SNP prediction were analysed including the a priori expected polymorphism, the probability score (PSNP), and the contig depth and length. SNP detection in 3' and 5' reads from the same clones revealed a level of inconsistency between overlapping sequences as low as 1%. A subset of 245 predicted SNPs were verified through the independent resequencing of genomic DNA of a genotype also used to prepare cDNA libraries. The validation rate reached a maximum of 85% for SNPs predicted with either PSNP > or = 0.95 or > or = 0.99. A total of 9,310 SNPs were detected by using PSNP > or = 0.95 as a criterion. The SNPs were distributed among 3,590 contigs encompassing an array of broad functional categories, with an overall frequency of 1 SNP per 700 nucleotide sites. Experimental and statistical approaches were used to evaluate the proportion of paralogous SNPs, with estimates in the range of 8 to 12%. The 3,789 coding SNPs identified through coding region annotation and ORF prediction, were distributed into 39% nonsynonymous and 61% synonymous substitutions. Overall, there were 0.9 SNP per 1,000 nonsynonymous sites and 5.2 SNPs per 1,000 synonymous sites, for a genome-wide nonsynonymous to synonymous substitution rate ratio (Ka/Ks) of 0.17. CONCLUSION: We integrated the SNP data in the ForestTreeDB database along with functional annotations to provide a tool facilitating the choice of candidate genes for mapping purposes or association studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".