Fast characterization of segmental duplications in genome assemblies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Segmental duplications (SDs) or low-copy repeats, are segments of DNA > 1 Kbp with high sequence identity that are copied to other regions of the genome. SDs are among the most important sources of evolution, a common cause of genomic structural variation and several are associated with diseases of genomic origin including schizophrenia and autism. Despite their functional importance, SDs present one of the major hurdles for de novo genome assembly due to the ambiguity they cause in building and traversing both state-of-the-art overlap-layout-consensus and de Bruijn graphs. This causes SD regions to be misassembled, collapsed into a unique representation, or completely missing from assembled reference genomes for various organisms. In turn, this missing or incorrect information limits our ability to fully understand the evolution and the architecture of the genomes. Despite the essential need to accurately characterize SDs in assemblies, there has been only one tool that was developed for this purpose, called Whole-Genome Assembly Comparison (WGAC); its primary goal is SD detection. WGAC is comprised of several steps that employ different tools and custom scripts, which makes this strategy difficult and time consuming to use. Thus there is still a need for algorithms to characterize within-assembly SDs quickly, accurately, and in a user friendly manner. Results: Here we introduce SEgmental Duplication Evaluation Framework (SEDEF) to rapidly detect SDs through sophisticated filtering strategies based on Jaccard similarity and local chaining. We show that SEDEF accurately detects SDs while maintaining substantial speed up over WGAC that translates into practical run times of minutes instead of weeks. Notably, our algorithm captures up to 25% 'pairwise error' between segments, whereas previous studies focused on only 10%, allowing us to more deeply track the evolutionary history of the genome. Availability and implementation: SEDEF is available at https://github.com/vpc-ccg/sedef.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".