k-mer-Based Genome-Wide Association Studies in Plants: Advances, Challenges, and Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have allowed the discovery of marker–trait associations in crops over recent decades. However, their power is hampered by a number of limitations, with the key one among them being an overreliance on single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as molecular markers. Indeed, SNPs represent only one type of genetic variation and are usually derived from alignment to a single genome assembly that may be poorly representative of the population under study. To overcome this, k-mer-based GWAS approaches have recently been developed. k-mer-based GWAS provide a universal way to assess variation due to SNPs, insertions/deletions, and structural variations without having to specifically detect and genotype these variants. In addition, k-mer-based analyses can be used in species that lack a reference genome. However, the use of k-mers for GWAS presents challenges such as data size and complexity, lack of standard tools, and potential detection of false associations. Nevertheless, efforts are being made to overcome these challenges and a general analysis workflow has started to emerge. We identify the priorities for k-mer-based GWAS in years to come, notably in the development of user-friendly programs for their analysis and approaches for linking significant k-mers to sequence variation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".