MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994442212 · doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-360

Assembling networks of microbial genomes using linear programming

2010· article· en· W1994442212 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Holloway, Robert G. Beiko

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Evolutionary Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomeBiologyInferenceInheritance (genetic algorithm)Set (abstract data type)Computational biologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGeneComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Microbial genomes exhibit complex sets of genetic affinities due to lateral genetic transfer. Assessing the relative contributions of parent-to-offspring inheritance and gene sharing is a vital step in understanding the evolutionary origins and modern-day function of an organism, but recovering and showing these relationships is a challenging problem. RESULTS: We have developed a new approach that uses linear programming to find between-genome relationships, by treating tables of genetic affinities (here, represented by transformed BLAST e-values) as an optimization problem. Validation trials on simulated data demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach in recovering and representing vertical and lateral relationships among genomes. Application of the technique to a set comprising Aquifex aeolicus and 75 other thermophiles showed an important role for large genomes as 'hubs' in the gene sharing network, and suggested that genes are preferentially shared between organisms with similar optimal growth temperatures. We were also able to discover distinct and common genetic contributors to each sequenced representative of genus Pseudomonas. CONCLUSIONS: The linear programming approach we have developed can serve as an effective inference tool in its own right, and can be an efficient first step in a more-intensive phylogenomic analysis.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Evolutionary BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207