MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2484748210 · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12570

Exome capture from the spruce and pine giga‐genomes

2016· article· en· W2484748210 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Haktan Suren, Kathryn A. Hodgins, Sam Yeaman, Kristin A. Nurkowski, Pia Smets, Loren H. Rieseberg, Sally N. Aitken, Jason A. Holliday

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology Resources · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureAlberta Innovates Bio SolutionsMinistry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
KeywordsBiologyGenomeExomeEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyExome sequencingGeneticsGeneMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sequence capture is a flexible tool for generating reduced representation libraries, particularly in species with massive genomes. We used an exome capture approach to sequence the gene space of two of the dominant species in Canadian boreal and montane forests - interior spruce (Picea glauca x engelmanii) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Transcriptome data generated with RNA-seq were coupled with draft genome sequences to design baits corresponding to 26 824 genes from pine and 28 649 genes from spruce. A total of 579 samples for spruce and 631 samples for pine were included, as well as two pine congeners and six spruce congeners. More than 50% of targeted regions were sequenced at >10× depth in each species, while ~12% captured near-target regions within 500 bp of a bait position were sequenced to a depth >10×. Much of our read data arose from off-target regions, which was likely due to the fragmented and incomplete nature of the draft genome assemblies. Capture in general was successful for the related species, suggesting that baits designed for a single species are likely to successfully capture sequences from congeners. From these data, we called approximately 10 million SNPs and INDELs in each species from coding regions, introns, untranslated and flanking regions, as well as from the intergenic space. Our study demonstrates the utility of sequence capture for resequencing in complex conifer genomes, suggests guidelines for improving capture efficiency and provides a rich resource of genetic variants for studies of selection and local adaptation in these species.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.825
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations80
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Ecology ResourcesSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207