One species, two genomes: A critical assessment of inter-isolate variation and identification of assembly incongruence in <i>Haemonchus contortus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Numerous quality issues may compromise genomic data’s representation of its underlying organism. In this study, we compared two genomes published by different research groups for the parasitic nematode Haemonchus contortus , corresponding to divergent isolates. We analyzed differences between the genomes, attempting to ascertain which were attributable to legitimate biological differences, and which to technical error in one or both genomes. Results We found discrepancies between the H. contortus genomes in both assembly and annotation. The genomes differed in representation of genes that are highly conserved across eukaryotes, with clear evidence of misassembly underlying conserved genes missing from one genome or the other. Only 45% of genes in one genome were orthologous to genes in the other genome, with one genome exhibiting almost as much orthology to C. elegans as its counterpart H. contortus strain. The two genomes differed substantially in probable causes underlying this unexpectedly low orthology. One genome included many more inparalogues than the other, and more frequently assembled inparalogues together on the same portions of contiguous sequence. It also exhibited cases of better-conserved gene position relative to C. elegans . Conclusion The discrepancies between the two genomes far exceeded those expected as a consequence of biological differences between the two H. contortus isolates. This implies substantial quality issues in one or both genomes, suggesting that researchers must exercise caution when using genomic data for newly sequenced species.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".