Cross‐platform compatibility of <i>de novo</i>‐aligned <scp>SNP</scp>s in a nonmodel butterfly genus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing methods for genotyping genome-wide markers are being rapidly adopted for phylogenetics of nonmodel organisms in conservation and biodiversity studies. However, the reproducibility of SNP genotyping and degree of marker overlap or compatibility between datasets from different methodologies have not been tested in nonmodel systems. Using double-digest restriction site-associated DNA sequencing, we sequenced a common set of 22 specimens from the butterfly genus Speyeria on two different Illumina platforms, using two variations of library preparation. We then used a de novo approach to bioinformatic locus assembly and SNP discovery for subsequent phylogenetic analyses. We found a high rate of locus recovery despite differences in library preparation and sequencing platforms, as well as overall high levels of data compatibility after data processing and filtering. These results provide the first application of NGS methods for phylogenetic reconstruction in Speyeria and support the use and long-term viability of SNP genotyping applications in nonmodel systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".