A novel post hoc method for detecting index switching finds no evidence for increased switching on the Illumina HiSeq X
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing using the Illumina HiSeq platform is a pervasive and critical molecular ecology resource, and has provided the data underlying many recent advances. A recent study has suggested that "index switching," where reads are misattributed to the wrong sample, may be higher in new versions of the HiSeq platform. This has the potential to invalidate both published and in-progress work across the field. Here, we test for evidence of index switching in an exemplar whole-genome shotgun data set sequenced on both the Illumina HiSeq 2500, which should not have the problem, and the Illumina HiSeq X, which may. We leverage unbalanced heterozygotes, which may be produced by index switching, and ask whether the undersequenced allele is more likely to be found in other samples in the same lane than expected based on the allele frequency. Although we validate the sensitivity of this method using simulations, we find that neither the HiSeq 2500 nor the HiSeq X has evidence of index switching. This suggests that, thankfully, index switching may not be a ubiquitous problem in HiSeq X sequence data. Lastly, we provide scripts for applying our method so that index switching can be tested for in other data sets.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".