MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2778329296 · doi:10.1101/225623

Reconstructing phylogeny from reduced-representation genome sequencing data without assembly or alignment

2017· preprint· en· W2778329296 on OpenAlexaff
Huan Fan, Anthony R. Ives, Yann Surget‐Groba

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomePhylogenetic treeSelection (genetic algorithm)DNA sequencingComputational biologyBiologyPhylogeneticsComputer scienceData miningGeneticsArtificial intelligenceDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although genome sequencing is becoming cheaper and faster, reducing the quantity of data by only sequencing part of the genome lowers both sequencing costs and computational burdens. One popular genome-reduction approach is restriction site associated DNA sequencing, or RADseq. RADseq was initially designed for studying genetic variation across genomes usually at the population level, and it has also proved to be suitable for interspecific phylogeny reconstruction. RADseq data pose challenges for standard phylogenomic methods, however, due to incomplete coverage of the genome and large amounts of missing data. Alignment-free methods are both efficient and accurate for phylogenetic reconstructions with whole genomes and are especially practical for non-model organisms; nonetheless, alignment-free methods have only been applied with whole genome sequences. Here, we test a full-genome assembly and alignment-free method, AAF, in application to RADseq data and propose two procedures for reads selection to remove missing data. We validate these methods using both simulations and a real dataset. Reads selection improved the accuracy of phylogenetic construction in every simulated scenario and the real dataset, making AAF comparable to or better than alignment-based method with much lower computation burdens. We also investigated the sources of missing data in RADseq and their effects on phylogeny reconstruction using AAF. The AAF pipeline modified for RADseq data, phyloRAD, is available on github ( https://github.com/fanhuan/phyloRAD ).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→