What can we infer about mutation calling by using time‐series mutation accumulation data and a Bayesian Mutation Finder?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate estimates of mutation rates derived from genome‐wide mutation accumulation (MA) data are fundamental to understanding basic evolutionary processes. The rapidly improving high‐throughput sequencing technologies provide unprecedented opportunities to identify single nucleotide mutations across genomes. However, such MA derived data are often difficult to analyze and the performance of the available methods of analysis is not well understood. In this study, we used the existing Bayesian Genotype Caller adapted for MA data that we refer to as Bayesian Mutation Finder (BMF) for identifying single nucleotide mutations while considering the characteristics of the data. We compared the performance of BMF with the widely used Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) by applying these two methods to time‐series MA data as well as simulated data. The time‐series data were obtained by propagating Daphnia pulex over an average of 188 generations and performing whole‐genome sequencing of 14 MA lines across three time points. The results indicate that BMF enables more accurate identification of single nucleotide mutations than GATK especially when applied to the empirical data. Furthermore, BMF involves the use of fewer parameters and is more computationally efficient than GATK. Both BMF and GATK found surprisingly many candidate mutations that were not confirmed at later time points. We systematically infer causes of the unconfirmed candidate mutations, introduce a framework for estimating mutation rates based on genome‐wide candidate mutations confirmed by subsequent sequencing, and provide an improved mutation rate estimate for D. pulex .
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 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".