Major inconsistencies of inferred population genetic structure estimated in a large set of domestic horse breeds using microsatellites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract STRUCTURE remains the most applied software aimed at recovering the true, but unknown, population structure from microsatellite or other genetic markers. About 30% of STRUCTURE‐based studies could not be reproduced (Molecular Ecology, 21, 2012, 4925). Here we use a large set of data from 2,323 horses from 93 domestic breeds plus the Przewalski horse, typed at 15 microsatellites, to evaluate how program settings impact the estimation of the optimal number of population clusters Kopt that best describe the observed data. Domestic horses are suited as a test case as there is extensive background knowledge on the history of many breeds and extensive phylogenetic analyses. Different methods based on different genetic assumptions and statistical procedures (DAPC, FLOCK, PCoA, and STRUCTURE with different run scenarios) all revealed general, broad‐scale breed relationships that largely reflect known breed histories but diverged how they characterized small‐scale patterns. STRUCTURE failed to consistently identify Kopt using the most widespread approach, the ΔK method, despite very large numbers of MCMC iterations (3,000,000) and replicates (100). The interpretation of breed structure over increasing numbers of K, without assuming a Kopt, was consistent with known breed histories. The over‐reliance on Kopt should be replaced by a qualitative description of clustering over increasing K, which is scientifically more honest and has the advantage of being much faster and less computer intensive as lower numbers of MCMC iterations and repetitions suffice for stable results. Very large data sets are highly challenging for cluster analyses, especially when populations with complex genetic histories are investigated.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".