BOSS: a novel scaffolding algorithm based on an optimized scaffold graph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: While aiming to determine orientations and orders of fragmented contigs, scaffolding is an essential step of assembly pipelines and can make assembly results more complete. Most existing scaffolding tools adopt scaffold graph approaches. However, due to repetitive regions in genome, sequencing errors and uneven sequencing depth, constructing an accurate scaffold graph is still a challenge task. RESULTS: In this paper, we present a novel algorithm (called BOSS), which employs paired reads for scaffolding. To construct a scaffold graph, BOSS utilizes the distribution of insert size to decide whether an edge between two vertices (contigs) should be added and how an edge should be weighed. Moreover, BOSS adopts an iterative strategy to detect spurious edges whose removal can guarantee no contradictions in the scaffold graph. Based on the scaffold graph constructed, BOSS employs a heuristic algorithm to sort vertices (contigs) and then generates scaffolds. The experimental results demonstrate that BOSS produces more satisfactory scaffolds, compared with other popular scaffolding tools on real sequencing data of four genomes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: BOSS is publicly available for download at https://github.com/bioinfomaticsCSU/BOSS CONTACT: jxwang@mail.csu.edu.cnSupplementary information: 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".