High-specificity detection of rare alleles with Paired-End Low Error Sequencing (PELE-Seq)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polymorphic loci exist throughout the genomes of a population and provide the raw genetic material needed for a species to adapt to changes in the environment. The minor allele frequencies of rare Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) within a population have been difficult to track with Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), due to the high error rate of standard methods such as Illumina sequencing. RESULTS: We have developed a wet-lab protocol and variant-calling method that identifies both sequencing and PCR errors, called Paired-End Low Error Sequencing (PELE-Seq). To test the specificity and sensitivity of the PELE-Seq method, we sequenced control E. coli DNA libraries containing known rare alleles present at frequencies ranging from 0.2-0.4 % of the total reads. PELE-Seq had higher specificity and sensitivity than standard libraries. We then used PELE-Seq to characterize rare alleles in a Caenorhabditis remanei nematode worm population before and after laboratory adaptation, and found that minor and rare alleles can undergo large changes in frequency during lab-adaptation. CONCLUSION: We have developed a method of rare allele detection that mitigates both sequencing and PCR errors, called PELE-Seq. PELE-Seq was evaluated using control E. coli populations and was then used to compare a wild C. remanei population to a lab-adapted population. The PELE-Seq method is ideal for investigating the dynamics of rare alleles in a broad range of reduced-representation sequencing methods, including targeted amplicon sequencing, RAD-Seq, ddRAD, and GBS. PELE-Seq is also well-suited for whole genome sequencing of mitochondria and viruses, and for high-throughput rare mutation screens.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".