PHAST, PHASTER and PHASTEST: Tools for finding prophage in bacterial genomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PHAST (PHAge Search Tool) and its successor PHASTER (PHAge Search Tool - Enhanced Release) have become two of the most widely used web servers for identifying putative prophages in bacterial genomes. Here we review the main capabilities of these web resources, provide some practical guidance regarding their use and discuss possible future improvements. PHAST, which was first described in 2011, made its debut just as whole bacterial genome sequencing and was becoming inexpensive and relatively routine. PHAST quickly gained popularity among bacterial genome researchers because of its web accessibility, its ease of use along with its enhanced accuracy and rapid processing times. PHASTER, which appeared in 2016, provided a number of much-needed enhancements to the PHAST server, including greater processing speed (to cope with very large submission volumes), increased database sizes, a more modern user interface, improved graphical displays and support for metagenomic submissions. Continuing developments in the field, along with increased interest in automated phage and prophage finding, have already led to several improvements to the PHASTER server and will soon lead to the development of a successor to PHASTER (to be called PHASTEST).
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it