Comparing Pool‐seq, Rapture, and GBS genotyping for inferring weak population structure: The American lobster ( <i>Homarus americanus</i> ) as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unraveling genetic population structure is challenging in species potentially characterized by large population size and high dispersal rates, often resulting in weak genetic differentiation. Genotyping a large number of samples can improve the detection of subtle genetic structure, but this may substantially increase sequencing cost and downstream bioinformatics computational time. To overcome this challenge, alternative, cost‐effective sequencing approaches, namely Pool‐seq and Rapture, have been developed. We empirically measured the power of resolution and congruence of these two methods in documenting weak population structure in nonmodel species with high gene flow comparatively to a conventional genotyping‐by‐sequencing (GBS) approach. For this, we used the American lobster ( Homarus americanus ) as a case study. First, we found that GBS, Rapture, and Pool‐seq approaches gave similar allele frequency estimates (i.e., correlation coefficient over 0.90) and all three revealed the same weak pattern of population structure. Yet, Pool‐seq data showed F ST estimates three to five times higher than GBS and Rapture, while the latter two methods returned similar F ST estimates, indicating that individual‐based approaches provided more congruent results than Pool‐seq. We conclude that despite higher costs, GBS and Rapture are more convenient approaches to use in the case of species exhibiting very weak differentiation. While both GBS and Rapture approaches provided similar results with regard to estimates of population genetic parameters, GBS remains more cost‐effective in project involving a relatively small numbers of genotyped individuals (e.g., <1,000). Overall, this study illustrates the complexity of estimating genetic differentiation and other summary statistics in complex biological systems characterized by large population size and migration rates.
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 | 0.000 | 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".