MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017648466 · doi:10.3791/1387

Large Insert Environmental Genomic Library Production

2009· article· en· W2017648466 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcus Taupp, Sang‐Won Lee, Alyse K. Hawley, Jin‐Shu Yang, Steven Hallam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBacteriophages and microbial interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftTula Foundation
KeywordsFosmidBiologyInsert (composites)genomic DNAGenomic libraryMetagenomicsNanopore sequencingDNAGeneticsDNA sequencingGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vast majority of microbes in nature currently remain inaccessible to traditional cultivation methods. Over the past decade, culture-independent environmental genomic (i.e. metagenomic) approaches have emerged, enabling researchers to bridge this cultivation gap by capturing the genetic content of indigenous microbial communities directly from the environment. To this end, genomic DNA libraries are constructed using standard albeit artful laboratory cloning techniques. Here we describe the construction of a large insert environmental genomic fosmid library with DNA derived from the vertical depth continuum of a seasonally hypoxic fjord. This protocol is directly linked to a series of connected protocols including coastal marine water sampling [1], large volume filtration of microbial biomass [2] and a DNA extraction and purification protocol [3]. At the outset, high quality genomic DNA is end-repaired with the creation of 5 -phosphorylated blunt ends. End-repaired DNA is subjected to pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) for size selection and gel extraction is performed to recover DNA fragments between 30 and 60 thousand base pairs (Kb) in length. Size selected DNA is purified away from the PFGE gel matrix and ligated to the phosphatase-treated blunt-end fosmid CopyControl vector pCC1 (EPICENTRE http://www.epibio.com/item.asp?ID=385). Linear concatemers of pCC1 and insert DNA are subsequently headfull packaged into phage particles by lambda terminase, with subsequent infection of phage-resistant E. coli cells. Successfully transduced clones are recovered on LB agar plates under antibiotic selection and archived in 384-well plate format using an automated colony picking robot (Qpix2, GENETIX). The current protocol draws from various sources including the CopyControl Fosmid Library Production Kit from EPICENTRE and the published works of multiple research groups [4-7]. Each step is presented with best practice in mind. Whenever possible we highlight subtleties in execution to improve overall quality and efficiency of library production. The whole process of fosmid library production and automated colony picking takes at least 7-10 days as there are many incubation steps included. However, there are several stopping points possible which are mentioned within the protocol.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.016

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicBacteriophages and microbial interactionsFrench-language works237,207