Optimization and performance testing of a sequence processing pipeline applied to detection of nonindigenous species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic taxonomic assignment can be more sensitive than morphological taxonomic assignment, particularly for small, cryptic or rare species. Sequence processing is essential to taxonomic assignment, but can also produce errors because optimal parameters are not known a priori. Here, we explored how sequence processing parameters influence taxonomic assignment of 18S sequences from bulk zooplankton samples produced by 454 pyrosequencing. We optimized a sequence processing pipeline for two common research goals, estimation of species richness and early detection of aquatic invasive species (AIS), and then tested most optimal models' performances through simulations. We tested 1,050 parameter sets on 18S sequences from 20 AIS to determine optimal parameters for each research goal. We tested optimized pipelines' performances (detectability and sensitivity) by computationally inoculating sequences of 20 AIS into ten bulk zooplankton samples from ports across Canada. We found that optimal parameter selection generally depends on the research goal. However, regardless of research goal, we found that metazoan 18S sequences produced by 454 pyrosequencing should be trimmed to 375-400 bp and sequence quality filtering should be relaxed (1.5 ≤ maximum expected error ≤ 3.0, Phred score = 10). Clustering and denoising were only viable for estimating species richness, because these processing steps made some species undetectable at low sequence abundances which would not be useful for early detection of AIS. With parameter sets optimized for early detection of AIS, 90% of AIS were detected with fewer than 11 target sequences, regardless of whether clustering or denoising was used. Despite developments in next-generation sequencing, sequence processing remains an important issue owing to difficulties in balancing false-positive and false-negative errors in metabarcoding data.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".