Sequence Comparative Analysis Using Networks: Software for Evaluating De Novo Transcript Assembly from Next-Generation Sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA sequencing technology is becoming more accessible to a variety of researchers as costs continue to decline. As researchers begin to sequence novel transcriptomes, most of these data sets lack a reference genome and will have to rely on de novo assemblers. Making comparisons across assemblies can be difficult: each program has its strengths and weaknesses, and no tool exists to comparatively evaluate these data sets. We developed software in R, called Sequence Comparative Analysis using Networks (SCAN), to perform statistical comparisons between distinct assemblies. SCAN uses a reference data set to identify the most accurate de novo assembly and the "good" transcripts in the user's data. We tested SCAN on three publicly available transcriptomes, each assembled using three assembly programs. Moreover, we sequenced the transcriptome of the oomycete Achlya hypogyna and compared de novo assemblies from Velvet, ABySS, and the CLC Genomics Workbench assembly algorithms. One thousand one hundred twenty-eight of the CLC transcripts were statistically similar to the reference, compared with 49 of the Velvet transcripts and 937 of the ABySS transcripts. SCAN's strength is providing statistical support for transcript assemblies in a biological context. However, SCAN is designed to compare distinct node sets in networks, therefore it can also easily be extended to perform statistical comparisons on any network graph regardless of what the nodes represent.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".