Microbial genomic island discovery, visualization and analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horizontal gene transfer (also called lateral gene transfer) is a major mechanism for microbial genome evolution, enabling rapid adaptation and survival in specific niches. Genomic islands (GIs), commonly defined as clusters of bacterial or archaeal genes of probable horizontal origin, are of particular medical, environmental and/or industrial interest, as they disproportionately encode virulence factors and some antimicrobial resistance genes and may harbor entire metabolic pathways that confer a specific adaptation (solvent resistance, symbiosis properties, etc). As large-scale analyses of microbial genomes increases, such as for genomic epidemiology investigations of infectious disease outbreaks in public health, there is increased appreciation of the need to accurately predict and track GIs. Over the past decade, numerous computational tools have been developed to tackle the challenges inherent in accurate GI prediction. We review here the main types of GI prediction methods and discuss their advantages and limitations for a routine analysis of microbial genomes in this era of rapid whole-genome sequencing. An assessment is provided of 20 GI prediction software methods that use sequence-composition bias to identify the GIs, using a reference GI data set from 104 genomes obtained using an independent comparative genomics approach. Finally, we present guidelines to assist researchers in effectively identifying these key genomic regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".