Distinguishing Microbial Genome Fragments Based on Their Composition: Evolutionary and Comparative Genomic Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that patterns of nucleotide composition vary within and among genomes, although the reasons why these variations exist are not completely understood. Between-genome compositional variation has been exploited to assign environmental shotgun sequences to their most likely originating genomes, whereas within-genome variation has been used to identify recently acquired genetic material such as pathogenicity islands. Recent sequence assignment techniques have achieved high levels of accuracy on artificial data sets, but the relative difficulty of distinguishing lineages with varying degrees of relatedness, and different types of genomic sequence, has not been examined in depth. We investigated the compositional differences in a set of 774 sequenced microbial genomes, finding rapid divergence among closely related genomes, but also convergence of compositional patterns among genomes with similar habitats. Support vector machines were then used to distinguish all pairs of genomes based on genome fragments 500 nucleotides in length. The nearly 300,000 accuracy scores obtained from these trials were used to construct general models of distinguishability versus taxonomic and compositional indices of genomic divergence. Unusual genome pairs were evident from their large residuals relative to the fitted model, and we identified several factors including genome reduction, putative lateral genetic transfer, and habitat convergence that influence the distinguishability of genomes. The positional, compositional, and functional context of a fragment within a genome has a strong influence on its likelihood of correct classification, but in a way that depends on the taxonomic and ecological similarity of the comparator genome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".