MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392376446 · doi:10.31428/10317/10916

Quantitative evaluation of bias in PCR amplification and Next Generation Sequencing derived from metabarcoding samples

2024· article· en· W4392376446 on OpenAlexaff
Pawluczyk Marta, Weiss Julia Rosl, Links Matthew G., Egaña Aranguren Mikel, Wilkinson Mark, Egea Gutiérrez-Cortines Marcos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersComunidad Autónoma de la Región de Murcia
KeywordsComputational biologyDNA sequencingComputer scienceBiologyGeneticsDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unbiased identification of organisms by PCR reactions using universal primers followed by DNA sequencing assumes positive amplification. We used six universal loci spanning 48 plant species and quantified the bias at each step of the identification process from end point PCR to Next-Generation Sequencing. End-point amplification was significantly different for single loci and between species. Quantitative PCR revealed that Cq threshold for various loci, even within a single DNA extraction, showed 2000-fold differences in DNA quantity after amplification. Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) experiments in nine species showed significant biases towards species and specific loci using adaptor-specific primers. NGS sequencing bias may be predicted to some extent by the Cq values of Q-PCR amplification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.389
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.063 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental DNA in Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207