MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553804235 · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.12700

Bioinformatic processing of RAD‐seq data dramatically impacts downstream population genetic inference

2016· article· en· W2553804235 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in Ecology and Evolution · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasRoyal Swedish Academy of SciencesWenner-Gren Foundation
KeywordsPopulationBiologyTransversionInferenceStatisticsGeneticsData miningComputational biologyComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Restriction site‐associated DNA sequencing (RAD‐seq) provides high‐resolution population genomic data at low cost, and has become an important component in ecological and evolutionary studies. As with all high‐throughput technologies, analytic strategies require critical validation to ensure precise and unbiased interpretation. To test the impact of bioinformatic data processing on downstream population genetic inferences, we analysed mammalian RAD‐seq data (>100 individuals) with 312 combinations of methodology ( de novo vs. mapping to references of increasing divergence) and filtering criteria (missing data, HWE, F IS , coverage, mapping and genotype quality). In an effort to identify commonalities and biases in all pipelines, we computed summary statistics (nr. loci, nr. SNP, π, Het obs , F IS , F ST , N e and m) and compared the results to independent null expectations (isolation‐by‐distance correlation, expected transition‐to‐transversion ratio T s /T v and Mendelian mismatch rates of known parent–offspring trios). We observed large differences between reference‐based and de novo approaches, the former generally calling more SNPs and reducing F IS and T s /T v . Data completion levels showed little impact on most summary statistics, and F ST estimates were robust across all pipelines. The site frequency spectrum was highly sensitive to the chosen approach as reflected in large variance of parameter estimates across demographic scenarios (single‐population bottlenecks and isolation‐with‐migration model). Null expectations were best met by reference‐based approaches, although contingent on the specific criteria. We recommend that RAD‐seq studies employ reference‐based approaches to a closely related genome, and due to the high stochasticity associated with the pipeline advocate the use of multiple pipelines to ensure robust population genetic and demographic inferences.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.323 · 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