bcgTree: automatized phylogenetic tree building from bacterial core genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need for multi-gene analyses in scientific fields such as phylogenetics and DNA barcoding has increased in recent years. In particular, these approaches are increasingly important for differentiating bacterial species, where reliance on the standard 16S rDNA marker can result in poor resolution. Additionally, the assembly of bacterial genomes has become a standard task due to advances in next-generation sequencing technologies. We created a bioinformatic pipeline, bcgTree, which uses assembled bacterial genomes either from databases or own sequencing results from the user to reconstruct their phylogenetic history. The pipeline automatically extracts 107 essential single-copy core genes, found in a majority of bacteria, using hidden Markov models and performs a partitioned maximum-likelihood analysis. Here, we describe the workflow of bcgTree and, as a proof-of-concept, its usefulness in resolving the phylogeny of 293 publically available bacterial strains of the genus Lactobacillus. We also evaluate its performance in both low- and high-level taxonomy test sets. The tool is freely available at github ( https://github.com/iimog/bcgTree ) and our institutional homepage ( http://www.dna-analytics.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de ).
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
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".