MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993204833 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr342

genBlastG: using BLAST searches to build homologous gene models

2011· article· en· W1993204833 on OpenAlexaff
Rong She, Jeffrey Chu, Bora Uyar, Jun Wang, Ke Wang, Nansheng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMichael Smith Health Research BCSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHomologous chromosomeComputer scienceComputational biologyHomologous recombinationGeneGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: BLAST users frequently expect to obtain homologous genes with certain similarity to their query genes. But what they get from BLAST searches are often collections of local alignments called high-scoring segment pairs (HSPs). On the other hand, most homology-based gene finders have been built using computation-intensive algorithms, without taking full advantage of BLAST searches that have been perfected over the last decades. RESULTS: Here we report an efficient algorithm, genBlastG that directly uses the HSPs reported by BLAST to define high-quality gene models. AVAILABILITY: http://genome.sfu.ca/genblast/download.html

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207