Benchmarking bacterial genome-wide association study methods using simulated genomes and phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have the potential to reveal the genetics of microbial phenotypes such as antibiotic resistance and virulence. Capitalizing on the growing wealth of bacterial sequence data, microbial GWAS methods aim to identify causal genetic variants while ignoring spurious associations. Bacteria reproduce clonally, leading to strong population structure and genome-wide linkage, making it challenging to separate true 'hits' (i.e. mutations that cause a phenotype) from non-causal linked mutations. GWAS methods attempt to correct for population structure in different ways, but their performance has not yet been systematically and comprehensively evaluated under a range of evolutionary scenarios. Here, we developed a bacterial GWAS simulator (BacGWASim) to generate bacterial genomes with varying rates of mutation, recombination and other evolutionary parameters, along with a subset of causal mutations underlying a phenotype of interest. We assessed the performance (recall and precision) of three widely used single-locus GWAS approaches (cluster-based, dimensionality-reduction and linear mixed models, implemented in plink, pyseer and gemma) and one relatively new multi-locus model implemented in pyseer, across a range of simulated sample sizes, recombination rates and causal mutation effect sizes. As expected, all methods performed better with larger sample sizes and effect sizes. The performance of clustering and dimensionality reduction approaches to correct for population structure were considerably variable according to the choice of parameters. Notably, the multi-locus elastic net (lasso) approach was consistently amongst the highest-performing methods, and had the highest power in detecting causal variants with both low and high effect sizes. Most methods reached the level of good performance (recall >0.75) for identifying causal mutations of strong effect size [log odds ratio (OR) ≥2] with a sample size of 2000 genomes. However, only elastic nets reached the level of reasonable performance (recall=0.35) for detecting markers with weaker effects (log OR ~1) in smaller samples. Elastic nets also showed superior precision and recall in controlling for genome-wide linkage, relative to single-locus models. However, all methods performed relatively poorly on highly clonal (low-recombining) genomes, suggesting room for improvement in method development. These findings show the potential for multi-locus models to improve bacterial GWAS performance. BacGWASim code and simulated data are publicly available to enable further comparisons and benchmarking of new methods.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".