MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155201678 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt092

EBARDenovo: highly accurate <i>de novo</i> assembly of RNA-Seq with efficient chimera-detection

2013· article· en· W2155201678 on OpenAlexaff
Hsueh‐Ting Chu, William Hsiao, Jen‐Chih Chen, Tze-Jung Yeh, Mong‐Hsun Tsai, Han Lin, Yen-Wenn Liu, Sheng‐An Lee, Chien-Chang Chen, Theresa T. H. Tsao, Cheng‐Yan Kao

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDe Bruijn graphSequence assemblyDe Bruijn sequenceComputer scienceComputational biologyDe novo transcriptome assemblyAmpliconRNA-SeqSoftwareRNAChimera (genetics)BiologyGraphGeneticsGeneTranscriptomeTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsProgramming languageGene expressionCombinatoricsPolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: High-accuracy de novo assembly of the short sequencing reads from RNA-Seq technology is very challenging. We introduce a de novo assembly algorithm, EBARDenovo, which stands for Extension, Bridging And Repeat-sensing Denovo. This algorithm uses an efficient chimera-detection function to abrogate the effect of aberrant chimeric reads in RNA-Seq data. RESULTS: EBARDenovo resolves the complications of RNA-Seq assembly arising from sequencing errors, repetitive sequences and aberrant chimeric amplicons. In a series of assembly experiments, our algorithm is the most accurate among the examined programs, including de Bruijn graph assemblers, Trinity and Oases. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: EBARDenovo is available at http://ebardenovo.sourceforge.net/. This software package (with patent pending) is free of charge for academic use only. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207