Toward an Upgraded Honey Bee (<i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) Genome Annotation Using Proteogenomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The honey bee is a key pollinator in agricultural operations as well as a model organism for studying the genetics and evolution of social behavior. The Apis mellifera genome has been sequenced and annotated twice over, enabling proteomics and functional genomics methods for probing relevant aspects of their biology. One troubling trend that emerged from proteomic analyses is that honey bee peptide samples consistently result in lower peptide identification rates compared with other organisms. This suggests that the genome annotation can be improved, or atypical biological processes are interfering with the mass spectrometry workflow. First, we tested whether high levels of polymorphisms could explain some of the missed identifications by searching spectra against the reference proteome (OGSv3.2) versus a customized proteome of a single honey bee, but our results indicate that this contribution was minor. Likewise, error-tolerant peptide searches lead us to eliminate unexpected post-translational modifications as a major factor in missed identifications. We then used a proteogenomic approach with ~1500 raw files to search for missing genes and new exons, to revive discarded annotations and to identify over 2000 new coding regions. These results will contribute to a more comprehensive genome annotation and facilitate continued research on this important insect.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".