MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979945966 · doi:10.1109/tcbb.2019.2945761

EPGA-SC : A Framework for<i>de novo</i>Assembly of Single-Cell Sequencing Reads

2019· article· en· W2979945966 on OpenAlexaff
Xingyu Liao, Min Li, Junwei Luo, You Zou, Fang‐Xiang Wu, Yi Pan, Feng Luo, Jianxin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersHigher Education Discipline Innovation ProjectNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsContigSequence assemblyHybrid genome assemblyComputer scienceDNA sequencingSingle cell sequencingDeep sequencingComputational biologyNanopore sequencingGenomeAlgorithmBiologyGeneticsExome sequencingMutationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assembling genomes from single-cell sequencing data is essential for single-cell studies. However, single-cell assemblies are challenging due to (i) the highly non-uniform read coverage and (ii) the elevated levels of sequencing errors and chimeric reads. Although several assemblers for single-cell data have been proposed in recent years, most of them fail to construct correct long contigs. In this study, we present a new framework called EPGA-SC for de novo assembly of single-cell sequencing reads. The EPGA assembler has designed strategies to solve the problems caused by sequencing errors, sequencing biases, and repetitive regions. However, the extremely unbalanced and richer error types prevent EPGA to achieve high performance in single-cell sequencing data. In this study, we designed EPGA-SC based on EPGA. The main innovations of EPGA-SC are as follows: (i) classifying reads to reduce the proportion of false reads; (ii) using multiple sets of high precision paired-end reads generated from the high precision assemblies produced by other assembler such as SPAdes to overcome the impact of sequencing biases and repetitive regions; and (iii) developing novel algorithms for removing chimeric errors and extending contigs. We test EPGA-SC with seven datasets. The experimental results show that EPGA-SC can generate better assemblies than most current tools in most time in term of MAX contig, N50, NG50, NA50, and NGA50.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and BioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207