MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080921667 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0307971100

Whole-genome shotgun assembly and comparison of human genome assemblies

2004· article· en· W2080921667 on OpenAlexaff
Sorin Istrail, Granger G. Sutton, Liliana Florea, Aaron L. Halpern, Clark Mobarry, Ross A. Lippert, Brian P. Walenz, Hagit Shatkay, Ian Dew, Jason Miller, Michael J. Flanigan, Nathan Edwards, Randall Bolanos, Daniel Fasulo, Bjarni V. Halldórsson, Sridhar Hannenhalli, Russell Turner, Shibu Yooseph, Fu Lu, Deborah Nusskern, Bixiong Chris Shue, Xiangqun Zheng-Bradley, Fei Zhong, Arthur L. Delcher, Daniel H. Huson, Saul Kravitz, Laurent Mouchard, Knut Reinert, Karin Remington, Andrew G. Clark, Michael S. Waterman, Evan E. Eichler, Mark D. Adams, Michael W. Hunkapiller, Eugene W. Myers, J. Craig Venter

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShotgun sequencingGenomeSequence assemblyReference genomeHybrid genome assemblyHuman genomeComputational biologyBiologyWhole genome sequencingShotgunGeneticsGenome projectGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report a whole-genome shotgun assembly (called WGSA) of the human genome generated at Celera in 2001. The Celera-generated shotgun data set consisted of 27 million sequencing reads organized in pairs by virtue of end-sequencing 2-kbp, 10-kbp, and 50-kbp inserts from shotgun clone libraries. The quality-trimmed reads covered the genome 5.3 times, and the inserts from which pairs of reads were obtained covered the genome 39 times. With the nearly complete human DNA sequence [National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Build 34] now available, it is possible to directly assess the quality, accuracy, and completeness of WGSA and of the first reconstructions of the human genome reported in two landmark papers in February 2001 [Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., Li, P. W., Mural, R. J., Sutton, G. G., Smith, H. O., Yandell, M., Evans, C. A., Holt, R. A., et al. (2001) Science 291, 1304-1351; International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2001) Nature 409, 860-921]. The analysis of WGSA shows 97% order and orientation agreement with NCBI Build 34, where most of the 3% of sequence out of order is due to scaffold placement problems as opposed to assembly errors within the scaffolds themselves. In addition, WGSA fills some of the remaining gaps in NCBI Build 34. The early genome sequences all covered about the same amount of the genome, but they did so in different ways. The Celera results provide more order and orientation, and the consortium sequence provides better coverage of exact and nearly exact repeats.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations184
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207