Sprites: detection of deletions from sequencing data by re-aligning split reads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".