MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891116942 · doi:10.1139/gen-2018-0027

Detection of large sequence insertions by a hybrid approach that combine de novo assembly and resequencing of medium-coverage genome sequences

2018· article· en· W2891116942 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Taeyoung Lee, Moon Young Kim, Jungmin Ha, Suk‐Ha Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoybean genetics and cultivation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContigBiologyGeneticsSequence assemblyGeneGenomeCoding regionDNA sequencingComputational biologyReference genome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large sequence insertion (LSI) is one of the structural variations (SVs) that may cause phenotypic differences in plants. To identify the LSIs using medium-coverage sequencing data of four wild soybean (Glycine soja) genotypes, we designed a hybrid approach combining de novo assembly and read mapping. Total reads and reads with both ends unmapped were independently assembled into "ordinary contigs" and "orphan contigs", respectively, and subjected to pairwise alignment and stringent filtering. This approach predicted 24 LSIs averaging 2682 bp in size, with no overlap with SVs detected by Pindel, BreakDancer, or ScanIndel, and they were validated by PCR. Compared with the soybean (Glycine max) reference genome, 20 LSIs were located outside genic regions. One of the four LSIs within a genic region, LSI05, is located in the coding DNA sequence region of a protein kinase superfamily gene (Glyma.08G123500). It caused delayed translation initiation and loss of 24 amino acids in the wild soybean genotype CW12. LSI05 was more frequently observed in 29 G. soja accessions than in 34 G. max accessions. Identified LSIs would be genomic resources harboring novel gene contents for studying SVs and improving crops. Moreover, our cost-efficient approach may be applicable to other plant species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicSoybean genetics and cultivationFrench-language works237,207