MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336321619 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btw053

Sprites: detection of deletions from sequencing data by re-aligning split reads

2016· article· en· W2336321619 on OpenAlexaff
Zhen Zhang, Jianxin Wang, Junwei Luo, Xiaojun Ding, Jiancheng Zhong, Jun Wang, Fang‐Xiang Wu, Yi Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceReference genomeDNA sequencingComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Advances of next generation sequencing technologies and availability of short read data enable the detection of structural variations (SVs). Deletions, an important type of SVs, have been suggested in association with genetic diseases. There are three types of deletions: blunt deletions, deletions with microhomologies and deletions with microsinsertions. The last two types are very common in the human genome, but they pose difficulty for the detection. Furthermore, finding deletions from sequencing data remains challenging. It is highly appealing to develop sensitive and accurate methods to detect deletions from sequencing data, especially deletions with microhomology and deletions with microinsertion. RESULTS: We present a novel method called Sprites (SPlit Read re-alIgnment To dEtect Structural variants) which finds deletions from sequencing data. It aligns a whole soft-clipping read rather than its clipped part to the target sequence, a segment of the reference which is determined by spanning reads, in order to find the longest prefix or suffix of the read that has a match in the target sequence. This alignment aims to solve the problem of deletions with microhomologies and deletions with microinsertions. Using both simulated and real data we show that Sprites performs better on detecting deletions compared with other current methods in terms of F-score. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Sprites is open source software and freely available at https://github.com/zhangzhen/sprites CONTACT: jxwang@mail.csu.edu.cnSupplementary data: 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207