Homology search for genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Life science researchers often require an exhaustive list of protein coding genes similar to a given query gene. To find such genes, homology search tools, such as BLAST or PatternHunter, return a set of high-scoring pairs (HSPs). These HSPs then need to be correlated with existing sequence annotations, or assembled manually into putative gene structures. This process is error-prone and labor-intensive, especially in genomes without reliable gene annotation. RESULTS: We have developed a homology search solution that automates this process, and instead of HSPs returns complete gene structures. We achieve better sensitivity and specificity by adapting a hidden Markov model for gene finding to reflect features of the query gene. Compared to traditional homology search, our novel approach identifies splice sites much more reliably and can even locate exons that were lost in the query gene. On a testing set of 400 mouse query genes, we report 79% exon sensitivity and 80% exon specificity in the human genome based on orthologous genes annotated in NCBI HomoloGene. In the same set, we also found 50 (12%) gene structures with better protein alignment scores than the ones identified in HomoloGene. AVAILABILITY: The Java implementation is available for download from http://www.bioinformatics.uwaterloo.ca/software.
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 | 0.001 | 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".