Assembling draft genomes using contiBAIT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Massively parallel sequencing is now widely used, but data interpretation is only as good as the reference assembly to which it is aligned. While the number of reference assemblies has rapidly expanded, most of these remain at intermediate stages of completion, either as scaffold builds, or as chromosome builds (consisting of correctly ordered, but not necessarily correctly oriented scaffolds separated by gaps). Completion of de novo assemblies remains difficult, as regions that are repetitive or hard to sequence prevent the accumulation of larger scaffolds, and create errors such as misorientations and mislocalizations. Thus, complementary methods for determining the orientation and positioning of fragments are important for finishing assemblies. Strand-seq is a method for determining template strand inheritance in single cells, information that can be used to determine relative genomic distance and orientation between scaffolds, and find errors within them. We present contiBAIT, an R/Bioconductor package which uses Strand-seq data to repair and improve existing assemblies. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: contiBAIT is available on Bioconductor. Source files available from GitHub. CONTACT: koneill@bcgsc.ca or mark.hills@stemcell.com. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".