Whole‐genome sequencing approaches for conservation biology: Advantages, limitations and practical recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole-genome resequencing (WGR) is a powerful method for addressing fundamental evolutionary biology questions that have not been fully resolved using traditional methods. WGR includes four approaches: the sequencing of individuals to a high depth of coverage with either unresolved or resolved haplotypes, the sequencing of population genomes to a high depth by mixing equimolar amounts of unlabelled-individual DNA (Pool-seq) and the sequencing of multiple individuals from a population to a low depth (lcWGR). These techniques require the availability of a reference genome. This, along with the still high cost of shotgun sequencing and the large demand for computing resources and storage, has limited their implementation in nonmodel species with scarce genomic resources and in fields such as conservation biology. Our goal here is to describe the various WGR methods, their pros and cons and potential applications in conservation biology. WGR offers an unprecedented marker density and surveys a wide diversity of genetic variations not limited to single nucleotide polymorphisms (e.g., structural variants and mutations in regulatory elements), increasing their power for the detection of signatures of selection and local adaptation as well as for the identification of the genetic basis of phenotypic traits and diseases. Currently, though, no single WGR approach fulfils all requirements of conservation genetics, and each method has its own limitations and sources of potential bias. We discuss proposed ways to minimize such biases. We envision a not distant future where the analysis of whole genomes becomes a routine task in many nonmodel species and fields including conservation biology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".