Choosing BLAST options for better detection of orthologs as reciprocal best hits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The analyses of the increasing number of genome sequences requires shortcuts for the detection of orthologs, such as Reciprocal Best Hits (RBH), where orthologs are assumed if two genes each in a different genome find each other as the best hit in the other genome. Two BLAST options seem to affect alignment scores the most, and thus the choice of a best hit: the filtering of low information sequence segments and the algorithm used to produce the final alignment. Thus, we decided to test whether such options would help better detect orthologs. RESULTS: Using Escherichia coli K12 as an example, we compared the number and quality of orthologs detected as RBH. We tested four different conditions derived from two options: filtering of low-information segments, hard (default) versus soft; and alignment algorithm, default (based on matching words) versus Smith-Waterman. All options resulted in significant differences in the number of orthologs detected, with the highest numbers obtained with the combination of soft filtering with Smith-Waterman alignments. We compared these results with those of Reciprocal Shortest Distances (RSD), supposed to be superior to RBH because it uses an evolutionary measure of distance, rather than BLAST statistics, to rank homologs and thus detect orthologs. RSD barely increased the number of orthologs detected over those found with RBH. Error estimates, based on analyses of conservation of gene order, found small differences in the quality of orthologs detected using RBH. However, RSD showed the highest error rates. Thus, RSD have no advantages over RBH. AVAILABILITY: Orthologs detected as Reciprocal Best Hits using soft masking and Smith-Waterman alignments can be downloaded from http://popolvuh.wlu.ca/Orthologs.
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 | 0.015 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".