Reference genome bias in light of species-specific chromosomal reorganization and translocations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Whole-genome sequencing efforts has during the past decade unveiled the central role of genomic rearrangements—such as chromosomal inversions—in evolutionary processes, including local adaptation in a wide range of taxa. However, employment of reference genomes from distantly or even closely related species for mapping and the subsequent variant calling, can lead to errors and/or biases in the datasets generated for downstream analyses. Here, we capitalize on the recently generated chromosome-anchored genome assemblies for Arctic cod ( Arctogadus glacialis ), polar cod ( Boreogadus saida ), and Atlantic cod ( Gadus morhua ) to evaluate the extent and consequences of reference bias on population sequencing datasets (approx. 15-20x coverage) for both Arctic cod and polar cod. Our findings demonstrate that the choice of reference genome impacts population genetic statistics, including individual mapping depth, heterozygosity levels, and cross-species comparisons of nucleotide diversity (π) and genetic divergence (D XY ). Further, it became evident that using a more distantly related reference genome can lead to inaccurate detection and characterization of chromosomal inversions, i.e., in terms of size (length) and location (position), due to inter-chromosomal reorganizations between species. Additionally, we observe that several of the detected species-specific inversions were split into multiple genomic regions when mapped towards a heterospecific reference. Inaccurate identification of chromosomal rearrangements as well as biased population genetic measures could potentially lead to erroneous interpretation of species-specific genomic diversity, impede the resolution of local adaptation, and thus, impact predictions of their genomic potential to respond to climatic and other environmental perturbations.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".