ntEdit: scalable genome sequence polishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: In the modern genomics era, genome sequence assemblies are routine practice. However, depending on the methodology, resulting drafts may contain considerable base errors. Although utilities exist for genome base polishing, they work best with high read coverage and do not scale well. We developed ntEdit, a Bloom filter-based genome sequence editing utility that scales to large mammalian and conifer genomes. RESULTS: We first tested ntEdit and the state-of-the-art assembly improvement tools GATK, Pilon and Racon on controlled Escherichia coli and Caenorhabditis elegans sequence data. Generally, ntEdit performs well at low sequence depths (<20×), fixing the majority (>97%) of base substitutions and indels, and its performance is largely constant with increased coverage. In all experiments conducted using a single CPU, the ntEdit pipeline executed in <14 s and <3 m, on average, on E.coli and C.elegans, respectively. We performed similar benchmarks on a sub-20× coverage human genome sequence dataset, inspecting accuracy and resource usage in editing chromosomes 1 and 21, and whole genome. ntEdit scaled linearly, executing in 30-40 m on those sequences. We show how ntEdit ran in <2 h 20 m to improve upon long and linked read human genome assemblies of NA12878, using high-coverage (54×) Illumina sequence data from the same individual, fixing frame shifts in coding sequences. We also generated 17-fold coverage spruce sequence data from haploid sequence sources (seed megagametophyte), and used it to edit our pseudo haploid assemblies of the 20 Gb interior and white spruce genomes in <4 and <5 h, respectively, making roughly 50M edits at a (substitution+indel) rate of 0.0024. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/bcgsc/ntedit. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
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".