Evaluating genotyping‐in‐thousands by sequencing as a genetic monitoring tool for a climate sentinel mammal using non‐invasive and archival samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic tools for wildlife monitoring can provide valuable information on spatiotemporal population trends and connectivity, particularly in systems experiencing rapid environmental change. Multiplexed targeted amplicon sequencing techniques, such as genotyping‐in‐thousands by sequencing (GT‐seq), can provide cost‐effective approaches for collecting genetic data from low‐quality and quantity DNA samples, making them potentially useful for long‐term wildlife monitoring using non‐invasive and archival samples. Here, we developed a GT‐seq panel as a potential monitoring tool for the American pika (Ochotona princeps) and evaluated its performance when applied to traditional, non‐invasive, and archival samples, respectively. Specifically, we optimized a GT‐seq panel (307 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)) that included neutral, sex‐associated, and putatively adaptive SNPs using contemporary tissue samples (n = 77) from the Northern Rocky Mountains lineage of American pikas. The panel demonstrated high genotyping success (94.7%), low genotyping error (0.001%), and excellent performance identifying individuals, sex, relatedness, and population structure. We subsequently applied the GT‐seq panel to archival tissue (n = 17) and contemporary fecal pellet samples (n = 129) collected within the Canadian Rocky Mountains to evaluate its effectiveness. Although the panel demonstrated high efficacy with archival tissue samples (90.5% genotyping success, 0.0% genotyping error), this was not the case for the fecal pellet samples (79.7% genotyping success, 28.4% genotyping error) likely due to the exceptionally low quality/quantity of recovered DNA using the approaches implemented. Overall, our study reinforced GT‐seq as an effective tool using contemporary and archival tissue samples, providing future opportunities for temporal applications using historical specimens. Our results further highlight the need for additional optimization of sample and genetic data collection techniques prior to broader‐scale implementation of a non‐invasive genetic monitoring tool for American pikas.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".