Parent-progeny imputation from pooled samples for cost-efficient genotyping in plant breeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased usage of whole-genome selection (WGS) and other molecular evaluation methods in plant breeding relies on the ability to genotype a very large number of untested individuals in each breeding cycle. Many plant breeding programs evaluate large biparental populations of homozygous individuals derived from homozygous parent inbred lines. This structure lends itself to parent-progeny imputation, which transfers the genotype scores of the parents to progeny individuals that are genotyped for a much smaller number of loci. Here we introduce a parent-progeny imputation method that infers individual genotypes from non-barcoded pooled samples of DNA of multiple individuals using a Hidden Markov Model (HMM). We demonstrate the method for pools of simulated maize double haploids (DH) from biparental populations, genotyped using a genotyping by sequencing (GBS) approach for 3,000 loci at 0.125x to 4x coverage. We observed high concordance between true and imputed marker scores and the HMM produced well-calibrated genotype probabilities that correctly reflected the uncertainty of the imputed scores. Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) calculated from the imputed scores closely matched GEBV calculated from the true marker scores. The within-population correlation between these sets of GEBV approached 0.95 at 1x and 4x coverage when pooling two or four individuals, respectively. Our approach can reduce the genotyping cost per individual by a factor up to the number of pooled individuals in GBS applications without the need for extra sequencing coverage, thereby enabling cost-effective large scale genotyping for applications such as WGS in plant breeding.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".