MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056251063 · doi:10.1089/cmb.2014.0156

PASTA: Ultra-Large Multiple Sequence Alignment for Nucleotide and Amino-Acid Sequences

2014· article· en· W2056251063 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Siavash Mirarab, Nam Nguyen, Sheng Guo, Li‐San Wang, Junhyong Kim, Tandy Warnow

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Human Genome Research InstituteHoward Hughes Medical InstituteNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on AgingUniversity of AlbertaPennsylvania Department of Health
KeywordsScalabilityMultiple sequence alignmentParallelizable manifoldComputer scienceSequence (biology)Alignment-free sequence analysisSequence alignmentTree (set theory)AlgorithmComputational biologyData miningBiologyMathematicsPeptide sequenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce PASTA, a new multiple sequence alignment algorithm. PASTA uses a new technique to produce an alignment given a guide tree that enables it to be both highly scalable and very accurate. We present a study on biological and simulated data with up to 200,000 sequences, showing that PASTA produces highly accurate alignments, improving on the accuracy and scalability of the leading alignment methods (including SATé). We also show that trees estimated on PASTA alignments are highly accurate--slightly better than SATé trees, but with substantial improvements relative to other methods. Finally, PASTA is faster than SATé, highly parallelizable, and requires relatively little memory.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.012

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations463
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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