Bibliographic record
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing projects continue to drive a vast accumulation of metagenomic sequence data. Given the growth rate of this data, automated approaches to functional annotation are indispensable and a cornerstone heuristic of many computational protocols is the concept of guilt by association. The guilt by association paradigm has been heavily exploited by genomic context methods that offer functional predictions that are complementary to homology-based annotations, thereby offering a means to extend functional annotation. In particular, operon methods that exploit co-directional intergenic distances can provide homology-free functional annotation through the transfer of functions among co-operonic genes, under the assumption that guilt by association is indeed applicable. Although guilt by association is a well-accepted annotative device, its applicability to metagenomic functional annotation has not been definitively demonstrated. Here a large-scale assessment of metagenomic guilt by association is undertaken where functional associations are predicted on the basis of co-directional intergenic distances. Specifically, functional annotations are compared within pairs of adjacent co-directional genes, as well as operons of various lengths (i.e. number of member genes), in order to reveal new information about annotative cohesion versus operon length. The results suggests that co-directional gene pairs offer reduced confidence for metagenomic guilt by association due to difficulty in resolving the existence of functional associations when intergenic distance is the sole predictor of pairwise gene interactions. However, metagenomic operons, particularly those with substantial lengths, appear to be capable of providing a superior basis for metagenomic guilt by association due to increased annotative stability. The need for improved recognition of metagenomic operons is discussed, as well as the limitations of the present work.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".