POOLPARTY2: An integrated pipeline for analyzing pooled or indexed low coverage whole genome sequencing data to discover the genetic basis of diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole genome sequencing data allow survey of variation from across the genome, reducing the constraint of balancing genome sub-sampling with recombination rates and linkage between sampled markers and target loci. As sequencing costs decrease, low coverage whole genome sequencing of pooled or indexed-individual samples is commonly utilized to identify loci associated with phenotypes or environmental axes in non-model organisms. There are, however, relatively few publicly available bioinformatic pipelines designed explicitly to analyze these types of data, and fewer still that process the raw sequencing data, provide useful metrics of quality control, and then execute analyses. Here, we present an updated version of a bioinformatics pipeline called POOLPARTY2 that can effectively handle either pooled or indexed DNA samples and includes new features to improve computational efficiency. Using simulated data, we demonstrate the ability of our pipeline to recover segregating variants, estimate their allele frequencies accurately, and identify genomic regions harboring loci under selection. Based on the simulated data set, we benchmark the efficacy of our pipeline with another bioinformatic suite, ANGSD, and illustrate the compatibility and complementarity of these suites by using ANGSD to generate genotype likelihoods as input for identifying linkage outlier regions using alignment files and variants provided by POOLPARTY2. Finally, we apply our updated pipeline to an empirical dataset of low coverage whole genomic data from uncurated population samples of Columbia River steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), results from which demonstrate the genomic impacts of decades of artificial selection in a prominent hatchery stock.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".