Mosaic Graphs and Comparative Genomics in Phage Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparing the genomes of two closely related viruses often produces mosaics where nearly identical sequences alternate with sequences that are unique to each genome. When several closely related genomes are compared, the unique sequences are likely to be shared with third genomes, leading to virus mosaic communities. Here we present comparative analysis of sets of Staphylococcus aureus phages that share large identical sequences with up to three other genomes, and with different partners along their genomes. We introduce mosaic graphs to represent these complex recombination events, and use them to illustrate the breath and depth of sequence sharing: some genomes are almost completely made up of shared sequences, while genomes that share very large identical sequences can adopt alternate functional modules. Mosaic graphs also allow us to identify breakpoints that could eventually be used for the construction of recombination networks. These findings have several implications on phage metagenomics assembly, on the horizontal gene transfer paradigm, and more generally on the understanding of the composition and evolutionary dynamics of virus communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".