Increasing Genome Sampling and Improving SNP Genotyping for Genotyping-by-Sequencing with New Combinations of Restriction Enzymes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) has emerged as a useful genomic approach for exploring genome-wide genetic variation. However, GBS commonly samples a genome unevenly and can generate a substantial amount of missing data. These technical features would limit the power of various GBS-based genetic and genomic analyses. Here we present software called IgCoverage for in silico evaluation of genomic coverage through GBS with an individual or pair of restriction enzymes on one sequenced genome, and report a new set of 21 restriction enzyme combinations that can be applied to enhance GBS applications. These enzyme combinations were developed through an application of IgCoverage on 22 plant, animal, and fungus species with sequenced genomes, and some of them were empirically evaluated with different runs of Illumina MiSeq sequencing in 12 plant species. The in silico analysis of 22 organisms revealed up to eight times more genome coverage for the new combinations consisted of pairing four- or five-cutter restriction enzymes than the commonly used enzyme combination PstI + MspI. The empirical evaluation of the new enzyme combination (HinfI + HpyCH4IV) in 12 plant species showed 1.7-6 times more genome coverage than PstI + MspI, and 2.3 times more genome coverage in dicots than monocots. Also, the SNP genotyping in 12 Arabidopsis and 12 rice plants revealed that HinfI + HpyCH4IV generated 7 and 1.3 times more SNPs (with 0-16.7% missing observations) than PstI + MspI, respectively. These findings demonstrate that these novel enzyme combinations can be utilized to increase genome sampling and improve SNP genotyping in various GBS applications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".