A two-phase strategy for detecting recombination in nucleotide sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic recombination can produce heterogeneous phylogenetic histories within a set of homologous genes. Delineating recombination events is important in the study of molecular evolution, as inference of such events provides a clearer picture of the phylogenetic relationships among different gene sequences or genomes. Nevertheless, detecting recombination events can be a daunting task, as the performance of different recombination-detecting approaches can vary, depending on evolutionary events that take place after recombination. We previously evaluated the effects of post-recombination events on the prediction accuracy of recombination-detecting approaches using simulated nucleotide sequence data. The main conclusion, supported by other studies, is that one should not depend on a single method when searching for recombination events. In this paper, we introduce a two-phase strategy, applying three statistical measures to detect the occurrence of recombination events, and a Bayesian phylogenetic approach to delineate breakpoints of such events in nucleotide sequences. We evaluate the performance of these approaches using simulated data, and demonstrate the applicability of this strategy to empirical data. The two-phase strategy proves to be time-efficient when applied to large datasets, and yields high-confidence results.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".