MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771413173 · doi:10.24870/cjb.2017-a216

Comparative assembly and analysis of different sized genomes using Pacbio sequencing technology

2017· article· en· W2771413173 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ridhi Goel, Rakesh Raj, Dhinoth Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Biotechnology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational biologySequence assemblyDNA sequencingGenomeBiologyGeneticsDNAGeneTranscriptome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PacBio is the third generation sequencing technology which is based on the single molecule real time sequencing (SMRT) platform using the property of zero-mode waveguide (ZMW). This technology generates very long reads which is best suited for various applications like de novo genome assembly, structural variations, full length transcriptomes, direct detection of base modifications etc. PacBio data can either be used alone or in combination with the illumina based shorter reads to facilitate a good assembly. Different algorithms are available to construct the genome based on PacBio alone or hybrid datasets. In order to identify the best possible approach we did a comparative study employing the widely accepted assembly tools on E.coli, C.elegans and A.thaliana datasets (PacBio & Ilumina (Paired end & Mate Pair)). We performed de novo genome assembly, gene prediction and gene annotation for all possible dataset (PacBio & Illumina PE & MP) and tools combination. The study resulted in the identification of the best method that could assemble the 4.6 MB of E.coli genome covering ~97% of BUSCO represented genes in a single contig. For C.elegans and A.thaliana we were able to achieve 109 MB and 123 MB sized assembly with ~80% of BUSCO represented genes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BiotechnologySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207