MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2003048603 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093455

A Two-Dimensional Pooling Strategy for Rare Variant Detection on Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms

2014· article· en· W2003048603 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip C. Zuzarte, Robert E. Denroche, Gordon Fehringer, Hagit Katzov-Eckert, John D. McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsPoolingColumn (typography)RowDNA sequencingComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsDNARow and column spacesDeep sequencingGenomeComputer scienceGeneArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a method for pooling and sequencing DNA from a large number of individual samples while preserving information regarding sample identity. DNA from 576 individuals was arranged into four 12 row by 12 column matrices and then pooled by row and by column resulting in 96 total pools with 12 individuals in each pool. Pooling of DNA was carried out in a two-dimensional fashion, such that DNA from each individual is present in exactly one row pool and exactly one column pool. By considering the variants observed in the rows and columns of a matrix we are able to trace rare variants back to the specific individuals that carry them. The pooled DNA samples were enriched over a 250 kb region previously identified by GWAS to significantly predispose individuals to lung cancer. All 96 pools (12 row and 12 column pools from 4 matrices) were barcoded and sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 2000 instrument with an average depth of coverage greater than 4,000×. Verification based on Ion PGM sequencing confirmed the presence of 91.4% of confidently classified SNVs assayed. In this way, each individual sample is sequenced in multiple pools providing more accurate variant calling than a single pool or a multiplexed approach. This provides a powerful method for rare variant detection in regions of interest at a reduced cost to the researcher.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.149 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→