MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392160045 · doi:10.7717/peerj.16946

Development of a high-density sub-species-specific targeted SNP assay for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (<i>Ovis canadensis canadensis</i>)

2024· article· en· W4392160045 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Deakin, David W. Coltman

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenotypingSNP genotypingBiologyMolecular Inversion ProbeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismOvis canadensisSNPGenomeGeneticsSNP arrayPopulationGenotypeGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to their abundance and relative ease of genotyping, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are a commonly used molecular marker for contemporary population genetic and genomic studies. A high-density and cost-effective way to type SNP loci is Allegro targeted genotyping (ATG), which is a form of targeted genotyping by sequencing developed and offered by Tecan genomics. One major drawback of this technology is the need for a reference genome and information on SNP loci when designing a SNP assay. However, for some non-model species genomic information from other closely related species can be used. Here we describe our process of developing an ATG assay to target 50,000 SNPs in Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, using a reference genome from domestic sheep and SNP resources from prior bighorn sheep studies. We successfully developed a high accuracy, high-density, and relatively low-cost SNP assay for genotyping Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep that genotyped ~45,000 SNP loci. These loci were relatively evenly distributed throughout the genome. Furthermore, the assay produced genotypes at tens of thousands of SNP loci when tested on other mountain sheep species and subspecies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207