Are similarity- or phylogeny-based methods more appropriate for classifying internal transcribed spacer (ITS) metagenomic amplicons?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) of the nuclear ribosomal DNA region is a widely used species marker for plants and fungi. Recent metagenomic studies using next-generation sequencing, however, generate only partial ITS sequences. Here we compare the performance of partial and full-length ITS sequences with several classification methods. • We compiled a full-length ITS data set and created short fragments to simulate the read lengths commonly recovered from current next-generation sequencing platforms. We compared recovery, erroneous recovery, and coverage for the following methods: best BLAST hit classification, MEGAN classification, and automated phylogenetic assignment using the Statistical Assignment Program (SAP). • We found that summarizing results with more inclusive taxonomic ranks increased recovery and reduced erroneous recovery. The similarity-based methods BLAST and MEGAN performed consistently across most fragment lengths. Using a phylogeny-based method, SAP runs with queries 400 bp or longer worked best. Overall, BLAST had the highest recovery rates and MEGAN had the lowest erroneous recovery rates. • A high-throughput ITS classification method should be selected, taking into consideration read length, an acceptable tradeoff between maximizing the total number of classifications and minimizing the number of erroneous classifications, and the computational speed of the assignment method.
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 | 0.000 | 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".