Distinguishing Species Using GC Contents in Mixed DNA or RNA Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of whole transcriptome and genome analysis methods, classifying samples containing multiple origins has become a significant task. Nucleotide sequences can be allocated to a genome or transcriptome by aligning sequences to multiple target sequence sets, but this approach requires extensive computational resources and also depends on target sequence sets lacking contaminants, which is often not the case. Here, we demonstrate that raw sequences can be rapidly sorted into groups, in practice corresponding to genera, by exploiting differences in nucleotide GC content. To do so, we introduce GCSpeciesSorter, which uses classification, specifically Support Vector Machines (SVM) and the C4.5 decision tree generator, to differentiate sequences. It also implements a secondary BLAST feature to identify known outliers. In the test case presented, a hermatypic coral holobiont, the cnidarian host includes various endosymbionts. The best characterized and most common of these symbionts are zooxanthellae of the genus Symbiodinium. GCSpeciesSorter separates cnidarian from Symbiodinium sequences with a high degree of accuracy. We show that if the GC contents of the species differ enough, this method can be used to accurately distinguish the sequences of different species when using high-throughput sequencing technologies.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".