A cautionary tale of low-pass sequencing and imputation with respect to haplotype accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Low-pass whole-genome sequencing and imputation offer significant cost savings, enabling substantial increases in sample size and statistical power. This approach is particularly promising in livestock breeding, providing an affordable means of screening individuals for deleterious alleles or calculating genomic breeding values. Consequently, it may also be of value in companion animal genomics to support pedigree breeding. We sought to evaluate in dogs the impact of low coverage sequencing and reference-guided imputation on genotype concordance and association analyses. Results DNA isolated from saliva of 30 Labrador retrievers was sequenced at low (0.9X and 3.8X) and high (43.5X) coverage, and down-sampled from 43.5X to 9.6X and 17.4X. Genotype imputation was performed using a diverse reference panel (1021 dogs), and two subsets of the former panel (256 dogs each) where one had an excess of Labrador retrievers relative to other breeds. We observed little difference in imputed genotype concordance between reference panels. Association analyses for a locus acting as a disease proxy were performed using single-marker (GEMMA) and haplotype-based (XP-EHH) tests. GEMMA results were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.97) between 43.5X and ≥ 3.8X depths of coverage, while for 0.9X the correlation was lower (r ≤ 0.8). XP-EHH results were less well correlated, with r ranging from 0.58 (0.9X) to 0.88 (17.4X). Across a random sample of 10,000 genomic regions averaging 17 kb in size, we observed a median of three haplotypes per dog across the sequencing depths, with 5% of the regions returning more than eight haplotypes. Inspection of one such region revealed genotype and phasing inconsistencies across sequencing depths. Conclusions We demonstrate that saliva-derived canine DNA is suitable for whole-genome sequencing, highlighting the feasibility of client-based sampling. Low-pass sequencing and imputation require caution as incorrect allele assignments result when the subject possesses alleles that are absent in the reference panel. Larger panels have the capacity for greater allelic diversity, which should reduce the potential for imputation error. Although low-pass sequencing can accurately impute allele dosage, we highlight issues with phasing accuracy that impact haplotype-based analyses. Consequently, if accurately phased genotypes are required for analyses, we advocate sequencing at high depth (> 20X).
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 | 0.226 | 0.459 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".