MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460162879 · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12561

<scp>megasat</scp>: automated inference of microsatellite genotypes from sequence data

2016· article· en· W2460162879 on OpenAlexafffund
Luyao Zhan, Ian G. Paterson, Bonnie A. Fraser, Beth Watson, Ian Bradbury, Praveen Nadukkalam Ravindran, David N. Reznick, Robert G. Beiko, Paul Bentzen

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Resources · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMicrosatelliteBiologyGenotypingGeneticsGenotypeLocus (genetics)AmpliconComputational biologyAllelePolymerase chain reactionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

megasat is software that enables genotyping of microsatellite loci using next-generation sequencing data. Microsatellites are amplified in large multiplexes, and then sequenced in pooled amplicons. megasat reads sequence files and automatically scores microsatellite genotypes. It uses fuzzy matches to allow for sequencing errors and applies decision rules to account for amplification artefacts, including nontarget amplification products, replication slippage during PCR (amplification stutter) and differential amplification of alleles. An important feature of megasat is the generation of histograms of the length-frequency distributions of amplification products for each locus and each individual. These histograms, analogous to electropherograms traditionally used to score microsatellite genotypes, enable rapid evaluation and editing of automatically scored genotypes. megasat is written in Perl, runs on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux systems, and includes a simple graphical user interface. We demonstrate megasat using data from guppy, Poecilia reticulata. We genotype 1024 guppies at 43 microsatellites per run on an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. We evaluated the accuracy of automatically called genotypes using two methods, based on pedigree and repeat genotyping data, and obtained estimates of mean genotyping error rates of 0.021 and 0.012. In both estimates, three loci accounted for a disproportionate fraction of genotyping errors; conversely, 26 loci were scored with 0-1 detected error (error rate ≤0.007). Our results show that with appropriate selection of loci, automated genotyping of microsatellite loci can be achieved with very high throughput, low genotyping error and very low genotyping costs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations83
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Ecology ResourcesSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207