Evaluation of four methods to identify the homozygotic sex chromosome in small populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole genomes are commonly assembled into a collection of scaffolds and often lack annotations of autosomes, sex chromosomes and, and organelle genomes (i.e., mitochondrial and chloroplast). As these chromosome types can have highly disparate evolutionary histories, it is imperative to take this information into account when analyzing genomic variation. Here we assessed the accuracy of four methods for identifying the homogametic sex chromosome using two whole genome sequenced (WGS) and 133 RAD sequenced white-tailed eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla): i) difference in read depth per scaffold, ii) heterozygosity per scaffold in a male and female bird, iii) mapping to a reference genome of a related species (chicken) with identified sex chromosomes, and iv) an analysis of SNP-loadings from a principal components analysis (PCA), based on low-depth RADseq data from 133 individuals. In i and ii, the WGS were mapped to a reference genome consisting of 1142 assembled scaffolds from the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) with no identified chromosomes. The read depth per scaffold identified 86.41% of the homogametic sex chromosome (Z) with few false positives. The SNP-loading scores found 78.6% of the Z-chromosome but had a false positive discovery rate of more than 10%. The heterozygosity per scaffold did not provide clear results due to a lack of diversity in both the Z and autosomal chromosomes, and potential interference from the heterogametic sex chromosome (W).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".