MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106532429 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm422

Multiple spaced seeds for homology search

2007· article· en· W2106532429 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucian Ilie, Silvana Ilie

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenome Rearrangement Algorithms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHomology (biology)Exponential functionHeuristicAlgorithmComputer scienceTime complexityMathematicsSensitivity (control systems)Smith–Waterman algorithmArtificial intelligenceSequence alignmentBiologyGeneticsAmino acidGenePeptide sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Homology search finds similar segments between two biological sequences, such as DNA or protein sequences. The introduction of optimal spaced seeds in PatternHunter has increased both the sensitivity and the speed of homology search, and it has been adopted by many alignment programs such as BLAST. With the further improvement provided by multiple spaced seeds in PatternHunterII, Smith-Waterman sensitivity is approached at BLASTn speed. However, computing optimal multiple spaced seeds was proved to be NP-hard and current heuristic algorithms are all very slow (exponential). RESULTS: We give a simple algorithm which computes good multiple seeds in polynomial time. Due to a completely different approach, the difference with respect to the previous methods is dramatic. The multiple spaced seed of PatternHunterII, with 16 weight 11 seeds, was computed in 12 days. It takes us 17 s to find a better one. Our approach changes the way of looking at multiple spaced seeds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
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

Citations67
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenome Rearrangement AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207