MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007506343 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2020.00067

NanoGBS: A Miniaturized Procedure for GBS Library Preparation

2020· article· en· W3007506343 on OpenAlexafffund
Davoud Torkamaneh, Brian Boyle, Jérôme St‐Cyr, Gaétan Légaré, Sonia Pomerleau, François Belzile

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersGenome Canada
KeywordsGenotypingSNP genotypingMultiplexingSingle-nucleotide polymorphismSNPDNA sequencingIon semiconductor sequencingComputational biologyComputer scienceThroughputBiologyGenotypeGeneticsDNAOperating systemGeneTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-throughput reduced-representation sequencing (RRS)-based genotyping methods, such as genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), have provided attractive genotyping solutions in numerous species. Here, we present NanoGBS, a miniaturized and eco-friendly method for GBS library construction. Using acoustic droplet ejection (ADE) technology, NanoGBS libraries were constructed in tenfold smaller volumes compared to standard methods (StdGBS) and leading to a reduced use of plastics of up to 90%. A high-quality DNA library and SNP catalogue were obtained with extensive overlap (96%) in SNP loci and 100% agreement in genotype calls compared to the StdGBS dataset with a high level of accuracy (98.5%). A highly multiplexed pool of GBS libraries (768-plex) was sequenced on a single Ion Proton PI chip and yielded enough SNPs (~4K SNPs; 1.5 SNP per cM, on average) for many high-volume applications. Combining NanoGBS library preparation and increased multiplexing can dramatically reduce (72%) genotyping cost per sample. We believe that this approach will greatly facilitate the adoption of marker applications where extremely high throughputs are required and cost is still currently limiting.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.014

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designBench or experimental · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Protocol

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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207