MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025462655 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-64680-3

High confidence copy number variants identified in Holstein dairy cattle from whole genome sequence and genotype array data

2020· article· en· W3025462655 on OpenAlexafffund
Adrien M. Butty, T.C.S. Chud, F. Miglior, Flávio S. Schenkel, Arun Kommadath, Kirill Krivushin, Jason R. Grant, Irene M. Häfliger, Cord Drögemüller, Ángela Cánovas, Paul Stothard, Christine F. Baes

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsAgricultural Research ServiceGenome CanadaOntario GenomicsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of GuelphAarhus UniversitetGenome AlbertaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsCopy-number variationBiologyPopulationConfidence intervalGenotypeGeneticsWhole genome sequencingIdentification (biology)GenomeComputational biologyGeneMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple methods to detect copy number variants (CNV) relying on different types of data have been developed and CNV have been shown to have an impact on phenotypes of numerous traits of economic importance in cattle, such as reproduction and immunity. Further improvements in CNV detection are still needed in regard to the trade-off between high-true and low-false positive variant identification rates. Instead of improving single CNV detection methods, variants can be identified in silico with high confidence when multiple methods and datasets are combined. Here, CNV were identified from whole-genome sequences (WGS) and genotype array (GEN) data on 96 Holstein animals. After CNV detection, two sets of high confidence CNV regions (CNVR) were created that contained variants found in both WGS and GEN data following an animal-based (n = 52) and a population-based (n = 36) pipeline. Furthermore, the change in false positive CNV identification rates using different GEN marker densities was evaluated. The population-based approach characterized CNVR, which were more often shared among animals (average 40% more samples per CNVR) and were more often linked to putative functions (48 vs 56% of CNVR) than CNV identified with the animal-based approach. Moreover, false positive identification rates up to 22% were estimated on GEN information. Further research using larger datasets should use a population-wide approach to identify high confidence CNVR.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207