MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003843657 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2013.0085

Using Structural and Evolutionary Information to Detect and Correct Pyrosequencing Errors in Noncoding RNAs

2013· article· en· W2003843657 on OpenAlexaff
Vladimir Reinharz, Yann Ponty, Jérôme Waldispühl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsSequence (biology)PointwiseAlgorithmComputer scienceComputational biologyComplement (music)Pipeline (software)Theoretical computer scienceBiologyGeneticsMathematicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis of the sequence-structure relationship in RNA molecules is not only essential for evolutionary studies but also for concrete applications such as error-correction in next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies. The prohibitive sizes of the mutational and conformational landscapes, combined with the volume of data to process, require efficient algorithms to compute sequence-structure properties. In this article, we address the correction of NGS errors by calculating which mutations most increase the likelihood of a sequence to a given structure and RNA family. We introduce RNApyro, an efficient, linear time and space inside-outside algorithm that computes exact mutational probabilities under secondary structure and evolutionary constraints given as a multiple sequence alignment with a consensus structure. We develop a scoring scheme combining classical stacking base-pair energies to novel isostericity scores and apply our techniques to correct pointwise errors in 5s and 16s rRNA sequences. Our results suggest that RNApyro is a promising algorithm to complement existing tools in the NGS error-correction pipeline.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207