Best practices for genotype imputation from low‐coverage sequencing data in natural populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Monitoring genetic diversity in wild populations is a central goal of ecological and evolutionary genetics and is critical for conservation biology. However, genetic studies of nonmodel organisms generally lack access to species‐specific genotyping methods (e.g. array‐based genotyping) and must instead use sequencing‐based approaches. Although costs are decreasing, high‐coverage whole‐genome sequencing (WGS), which produces the highest confidence genotypes, remains expensive. More economical reduced representation sequencing approaches fail to capture much of the genome, which can hinder downstream inference. Low‐coverage WGS combined with imputation using a high‐confidence reference panel is a cost‐effective alternative, but the accuracy of genotyping using low‐coverage WGS and imputation in nonmodel populations is still largely uncharacterized. Here, we empirically tested the accuracy of low‐coverage sequencing (0.1–10×) and imputation in two natural populations, one with a large ( n = 741) reference panel, rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta ), and one with a smaller ( n = 68) reference panel, gelada monkeys ( Theropithecus gelada ). Using samples sequenced to coverage as low as 0.5×, we could impute genotypes at >95% of the sites in the reference panel with high accuracy (median r 2 ≥ 0.92). We show that low‐coverage imputed genotypes can reliably calculate genetic relatedness and population structure. Based on these data, we also provide best practices and recommendations for researchers who wish to deploy this approach in other populations, with all code available on GitHub ( https://github.com/mwatowich/LoCSI‐for‐non‐model‐species ). Our results endorse accurate and effective genotype imputation from low‐coverage sequencing, enabling the cost‐effective generation of population‐scale genetic datasets necessary for tackling many pressing challenges of wildlife conservation.
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 | 0.066 | 0.168 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".