RefSoil: A reference database of soil microbial genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A database of curated genomes is needed to better assess soil microbial communities and their processes associated with differing land management and environmental impacts. Interpreting soil metagenomic datasets with existing sequence databases is challenging because these datasets are biased towards medical and biotechnology research and can result in misleading annotations. We have curated a database of 922 genomes of soil-associated organisms (888 bacteria and 34 archaea). Using this database, we evaluated phyla and functions that are enriched in soils as well as those that may be underrepresented in RefSoil. Our comparison of RefSoil to soil amplicon datasets allowed us to identify targets that if cultured or sequenced would significantly increase the biodiversity represented within RefSoil. To demonstrate the opportunities to access these underrepresented targets, we employed single cell genomics in a pilot experiment to sequence 14 genomes. This effort demonstrates the value of RefSoil in the guidance of future research efforts and the capability of single cell genomics as a practical means to fill the existing genomic data gaps.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
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".