MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580191062 · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syw105

Phylogenomics from Whole Genome Sequences Using aTRAM

2016· article· en· W2580191062 on OpenAlexaff
Julie M. Allen, Bret M. Boyd, Nam Nguyen, Pranjal Vachaspati, Tandy Warnow, Daisie Huang, Patrick G. S. Grady, Kayce C. Bell, Quentin Cronk, Lawrence Mugisha, Barry R. Pittendrigh, María Soledad Leonardi, David L. Reed, Kevin P. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenomicsGenomeCoalescent theoryBiologyPhylogenetic treeComputational biologyGeneTree (set theory)PhylogeneticsGenomicsGeneticsEvolutionary biologyClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novel sequencing technologies are rapidly expanding the size of data sets that can be applied to phylogenetic studies. Currently the most commonly used phylogenomic approaches involve some form of genome reduction. While these approaches make assembling phylogenomic data sets more economical for organisms with large genomes, they reduce the genomic coverage and thereby the long-term utility of the data. Currently, for organisms with moderate to small genomes ($<$1000 Mbp) it is feasible to sequence the entire genome at modest coverage ($10-30\times$). Computational challenges for handling these large data sets can be alleviated by assembling targeted reads, rather than assembling the entire genome, to produce a phylogenomic data matrix. Here we demonstrate the use of automated Target Restricted Assembly Method (aTRAM) to assemble 1107 single-copy ortholog genes from whole genome sequencing of sucking lice (Anoplura) and out-groups. We developed a pipeline to extract exon sequences from the aTRAM assemblies by annotating them with respect to the original target protein. We aligned these protein sequences with the inferred amino acids and then performed phylogenetic analyses on both the concatenated matrix of genes and on each gene separately in a coalescent analysis. Finally, we tested the limits of successful assembly in aTRAM by assembling 100 genes from close- to distantly related taxa at high to low levels of coverage.Both the concatenated analysis and the coalescent-based analysis produced the same tree topology, which was consistent with previously published results and resolved weakly supported nodes. These results demonstrate that this approach is successful at developing phylogenomic data sets from raw genome sequencing reads. Further, we found that with coverages above $5-10\times$, aTRAM was successful at assembling 80-90% of the contigs for both close and distantly related taxa. As sequencing costs continue to decline, we expect full genome sequencing will become more feasible for a wider array of organisms, and aTRAM will enable mining of these genomic data sets for an extensive variety of applications, including phylogenomics. [aTRAM; gene assembly; genome sequencing; phylogenomics.].

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations79
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207