MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283010782 · doi:10.3897/aca.5.e87349

Full chloroplast sequencing using genome skimming for novel plant DNA barcode discovery in Amaranths

2022· article· en· W4283010782 on OpenAlexaff
Leonardo Galindo Gonzalez, Marie‐Claude Gagnon, Sarah Kyte, Andréanne Charron, Adam Colville

Bibliographic record

VenueARPHA Conference Abstracts · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomeBiologyChloroplast DNADNA barcodingGeneticsDNA sequencingPhylogenetic treeComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA barcoding has been established as an efficient, sensitive and reliable methodology for plant identification. However, in spite of efforts to find a universal DNA plant barcode, some taxa are not sufficiently resolved by typical plant barcoding genes like matK or rbcL. We have used a technique known as genome skimming, which relies on the empiric low coverage sequencing of a full plant genome, resulting in high coverage of the high copy genome fractions such as chloroplast and rDNA. Phylogenetic studies show that these regions are a reservoir of variability which could be further exploited for DNA barcode discovery. We sequenced eight amaranth species using Illumina Next Generation Sequencing technology to test the feasibility of this technique. Amaranths were chosen due to their increasing impact as invasive species bearing multiple herbicide resistance mechanisms. Our results showed that complete chloroplast genomes could be assembled for all of the eight species tested. We obtained an average of 47 million reads for each one of the amaranth nuclear genomes, which range in size between 400-700Mb approximately. These reads provide an average theoretical coverage of 10-15X for each nuclear genome, but resulted in an average chloroplast genome coverage in the range of 500-8000X due to multiple chloroplast genome copies per cell. Alignment of the eight chloroplast genomes shows variability in the single copy regions (Fig. 1), especially on intergenic sections (Fig. 2). Additional preliminary analyses also show variation among different populations of the same species, demonstrating the importance of studying both inter and intraspecific diversity to design reliable and accurate DNA barcodes that can be used in species identification.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARPHA Conference AbstractsSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207