Theoretical and experimental assessment of degenerate primer tagging in ultra-deep applications of next-generation sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primer IDs (pIDs) are random oligonucleotide tags used in next-generation sequencing to identify sequences that originate from the same template. These tags are produced by degenerate primers during the reverse transcription of RNA molecules into cDNA. The use of pIDs helps to track the number of RNA molecules carried through amplification and sequencing, and allows resolution of inconsistencies between reads sharing a pID. Three potential issues complicate the above applications. First, multiple cDNAs may share a pID by chance; we found that while preventing any cDNAs from sharing a pID may be unfeasible, it is still practical to limit the number of these collisions. Secondly, a pID must be observed in at least three sequences to allow error correction; as such, pIDs observed only one or two times must be rejected. If the sequencing product contains copies from a high number of RT templates but produces few reads, our findings indicate that rejecting such pIDs will discard a great deal of data. Thirdly, the use of pIDs could influence amplification and sequencing. We examined the effects of several intrinsic and extrinsic factors on sequencing reads at both the individual and ensemble level.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".