Innovations and challenges in detecting long read overlaps: an evaluation of the state-of-the-art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying overlaps between error-prone long reads, specifically those from Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) and Pacific Biosciences (PB), is essential for certain downstream applications, including error correction and de novo assembly. Though akin to the read-to-reference alignment problem, read-to-read overlap detection is a distinct problem that can benefit from specialized algorithms that perform efficiently and robustly on high error rate long reads. Here, we review the current state-of-the-art read-to-read overlap tools for error-prone long reads, including BLASR, DALIGNER, MHAP, GraphMap and Minimap. These specialized bioinformatics tools differ not just in their algorithmic designs and methodology, but also in their robustness of performance on a variety of datasets, time and memory efficiency and scalability. We highlight the algorithmic features of these tools, as well as their potential issues and biases when utilizing any particular method. To supplement our review of the algorithms, we benchmarked these tools, tracking their resource needs and computational performance, and assessed the specificity and precision of each. In the versions of the tools tested, we observed that Minimap is the most computationally efficient, specific and sensitive method on the ONT datasets tested; whereas GraphMap and DALIGNER are the most specific and sensitive methods on the tested PB datasets. The concepts surveyed may apply to future sequencing technologies, as scalability is becoming more relevant with increased sequencing throughput. CONTACT: cjustin@bcgsc.ca , ibirol@bcgsc.ca. SUPPLEMENTARY 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 | 0.048 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".