<i>k</i> ‐mer‐based GWAS enhances the discovery of causal variants and candidate genes in soybean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are powerful statistical methods that detect associations between genotype and phenotype at genome scale. Despite their power, GWAS frequently fail to pinpoint the causal variant or the gene controlling a given trait in crop species. Assessing genetic variants other than single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) could alleviate this problem. In this study, we tested the potential of structural variant (SV)- and k-mer-based GWAS in soybean by applying these methods as well as conventional SNP/indel-based GWAS to 13 traits. We assessed the performance of each GWAS approach based on loci for which the causal genes or variants were known from previous genetic studies. We found that k-mer-based GWAS was the most versatile approach and the best at pinpointing causal variants or candidate genes. Moreover, k-mer-based analyses identified promising candidate genes for loci related to pod color, pubescence form, and resistance to Phytophthora sojae. In our dataset, SV-based GWAS did not add value compared to k-mer-based GWAS and may not be worth the time and computational resources invested. Despite promising results, significant challenges remain regarding the downstream analysis of k-mer-based GWAS. Notably, better methods are needed to associate significant k-mers with sequence variation. Our results suggest that coupling k-mer- and SNP/indel-based GWAS is a powerful approach for discovering candidate genes in crop species.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".