MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043039227 · doi:10.1101/2020.07.16.206193

ARPEGGIO: Automated Reproducible Polyploid EpiGenetic GuIdance workflOw

2020· preprint· en· W3043039227 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Milosavljevic, Tony Kuo, Samuele Decarli, Lucas Mohn, Jun Sese, Kentaro K. Shimizu, Rie Shimizu‐Inatsugi, Mark D. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität Zürich
KeywordsWorkflowBiologyComputational biologyEpigeneticsPolyploidDNA methylationGenomeComputer scienceGeneticsGeneDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Whole genome duplication (WGD) events are common in the evolutionary history of many living organisms. For decades, researchers have been trying to understand the genetic and epigenetic impact of WGD and its underlying molecular mechanisms. Particular attention was given to allopolyploid study systems, species resulting from an hybridization event accompanied by WGD. Investigating the mechanisms behind the survival of a newly formed allopolyploid highlighted the key role of DNA methylation. With the improvement of high-throughput methods, such as whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS), an opportunity opened to further understand the role of DNA methylation at a larger scale and higher resolution. However, only a few studies have applied WGBS to allopolyploids, which might be due to lack of genomic resources combined with a burdensome data analysis process. To overcome these problems, we developed the Automated Reproducible Polyploid EpiGenetic GuIdance workflOw (ARPEGGIO): the first workflow for the analysis of epigenetic data in polyploids. This workflow analyzes WGBS data from allopolyploid species via the genome assemblies of the allopolyploid’s parent species. ARPEGGIO utilizes an updated read classification algorithm (EAGLE-RC), to tackle the challenge of sequence similarity amongst parental genomes. ARPEGGIO offers automation, but more importantly, a complete set of analyses including spot checks starting from raw WGBS data: quality checks, trimming, alignment, methylation extraction, statistical analyses and downstream analyses. A full run of ARPEGGIO outputs a list of genes showing differential methylation. ARPEGGIO’s design focuses on ease of use and reproducibility. ARPEGGIO was made simple to set up, run and interpret, and its implementation includes both package management and containerization. Here we discuss all the steps, challenges and implementation strategies; example datasets are provided to show how to use ARPEGGIO. In addition, we also test EAGLE-RC with publicly available datasets given a ground truth, and we show that EAGLE-RC decreases the error rate by 3 to 4 times compared to standard approaches. The goal of ARPEGGIO is to promote, support and improve polyploid research with a reproducible and automated set of analyses in a convenient implementation.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: Software
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.018

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207