MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166281646 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bth019

Transposable element annotation of the rice genome

2004· article· en· W2166281646 on OpenAlexaff
Nikoleta Juretic, Thomas E. Bureau, Richard Bruskiewich

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnotationTransposable elementGenomeComputer sciencePerlSet (abstract data type)Computational biologyBiologySequence alignmentGeneticsProgramming languageGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: The high content of repetitive sequences in the genomes of many higher eukaryotes renders the task of annotating them computationally intensive. Presently, the only widely accepted method of searching and annotating transposable elements (TEs) in large genomic sequences is the use of the RepeatMasker program, which identifies new copies of TEs by pairwise sequence comparisons with a library of known TEs. Profile hidden Markov models (HMMs) have been used successfully in discovering distant homologs of known proteins in large protein databases, but this approach has only rarely been applied to known model TE families in genomic DNA. RESULTS: We used a combination of computational approaches to annotate the TEs in the finished genome of Oryza sativa ssp. japonica. In this paper, we discuss the strengths and the weaknesses of the annotation methods used. These approaches included: the default configuration of RepeatMasker using cross_match, an implementation of the Smith-Waterman-Gotoh algorithm; RepeatMasker using WU-BLAST for similarity searching; and the HMMER package, used to search for TEs with profile HMMs. All the results were converted into GFF format and post-processed using a set of Perl scripts. RepeatMasker was used in the case of most TE families. The WU-BLAST implementation of RepeatMasker was found to be manifold faster than cross_match with only a slight loss in sensitivity and was thus used to obtain the final set of data. HMMER was used in the annotation of the Mutator-like element (MULE) superfamily and the miniature inverted-repeat transposable element (MITE) polyphyletic group of families, for which large libraries of elements were available and which could be divided into well-defined families. The HMMER search algorithm was extremely slow for models over 1000 bp in length, so MULE families with members over 1000 bp long were processed with RepeatMasker instead. The main disadvantage of HMMER in this application is that, since it was developed with protein sequences in mind, it does not search the negative DNA strand. With the exception of TE families with essentially palindromic sequences, reverse complement models had to be created and run to compensate for this shortcoming. We conclude that a modification of RepeatMasker to incorporate libraries of profile HMMs in searches could improve the ability to detect degenerated copies of TEs. AVAILABILITY: The Perl scripts and TE sequences used in construction of the RepeatMasker library and the profile HMMs are available upon request.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations62
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207