Pygenprop: a Python library for programmatic exploration and comparison of organism genome properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: A critical step in comparative genomics is the identification of differences in the presence/absence of encoded biochemical pathways among organisms. Our library, Pygenprop, facilitates these comparisons using data from the Genome Properties database. Pygenprop is written in Python and, unlike existing libraries, it is compatible with a variety of tools in the Python data science ecosystem, such as Jupyter Notebooks for interactive analyses and scikit-learn for machine learning. Pygenprop assigns YES, NO, or PARTIAL support for each property based on InterProScan annotations of open reading frames from an organism's genome. The library contains classes for representing the Genome Properties database as a whole and methods for detecting differences in property assignments between organisms. As the Genome Properties database grows, we anticipate widespread adoption of Pygenprop for routine genome analyses and integration within third-party bioinformatics software. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Pygenprop is written in Python and is compatible with versions 3.6 or higher. Source code is available under Apache Licence Version 2 at https://github.com/Micromeda/pygenprop. The package can be installed from both PyPi (https://pypi.org/project/pygenprop) and Anaconda (https://anaconda.org/lbergstrand/pygenprop). Documentation is available on Read the Docs (http://pygenprop.rtfd.io/).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.055 |
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".