MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779918837 · doi:10.1186/s12863-017-0588-1

Novel methods for genotype imputation to whole-genome sequence and a simple linear model to predict imputation accuracy

2017· article· en· W2779918837 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven Larmer, Mehdi Sargolzaei, Luiz F. Brito, Ricardo Vieira Ventura, Flávio S. Schenkel

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Genetics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsBeef Farmers of OntarioMiller Group (Canada)University of Guelph
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyGenome AlbertaGovernment of AlbertaDairy Farmers of CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsImputation (statistics)CrossbreedCluster analysisPopulationPurebredBiologyStatisticsGenome-wide association studyBreedHaplotypeGenotypeMathematicsGeneticsMissing dataSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Accurate imputation plays a major role in genomic studies of livestock industries, where the number of genotyped or sequenced animals is limited by costs. This study explored methods to create an ideal reference population for imputation to Next Generation Sequencing data in cattle. METHODS: Methods for clustering of animals for imputation were explored, using 1000 Bull Genomes Project sequence data on 1146 animals from a variety of beef and dairy breeds. Imputation from 50 K to 777 K was first carried out to choose an ideal clustering method, using ADMIXTURE or PLINK clustering algorithms with either genotypes or reconstructed haplotypes. RESULTS: Due to efficiency, accuracy and ease of use, clustering with PLINK using haplotypes as quasi-genotypes was chosen as the most advantageous grouping method. It was found that using a clustered population slightly decreased computing time, while maintaining accuracy across the population. Although overall accuracy remained the same, a slight increase in accuracy was observed for groups of animals in some breeds (primarily purebred beef cattle from breeds with fewer sequenced animals) and for other groups, primarily crossbreed animals, a slight decrease in accuracy was observed. However, it was noted that some animals in each breed were poorly imputed across all methods. When imputed sequences were included in the reference population to aid imputation of poorly imputed animals, a small increase in overall accuracy was observed for nearly every individual in the population. Two models were created to predict imputation accuracy, a complete model using all information available including Euclidean distances from genotypes and haplotypes, pedigree information, and clustering groups and a simple model using only breed and an Euclidean distance matrix as predictors. Both models were successful in predicting imputation accuracy, with correlations between predicted and true imputation accuracy as measured by concordance rate of 0.87 and 0.83, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A clustering methodology can be very useful to subgroup cattle for efficient genotype imputation. In addition, accuracy of genotype imputation from medium to high-density Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) chip panels to whole-genome sequence can be predicted well using a simple linear model defined in this study.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeneticsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207