Optimal pooling for genome re-sequencing with ultra-high-throughput short-read technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New generation sequencing technologies offer unique opportunities and challenges for re-sequencing studies. In this article, we focus on re-sequencing experiments using the Solexa technology, based on bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones, and address an experimental design problem. In these specific experiments, approximate coordinates of the BACs on a reference genome are known, and fine-scale differences between the BAC sequences and the reference are of interest. The high-throughput characteristics of the sequencing technology makes it possible to multiplex BAC sequencing experiments by pooling BACs for a cost-effective operation. However, the way BACs are pooled in such re-sequencing experiments has an effect on the downstream analysis of the generated data, mostly due to subsequences common to multiple BACs. The experimental design strategy we develop in this article offers combinatorial solutions based on approximation algorithms for the well-known max n-cut problem and the related max n-section problem on hypergraphs. Our algorithms, when applied to a number of sample cases give more than a 2-fold performance improvement over random partitioning.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".