Accurate and Complete Genomes from Metagenomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genomes are an integral component of the biological information about an organism and, logically, the more complete the genome, the more informative it is. Historically, bacterial and archaeal genomes were reconstructed from pure (monoclonal) cultures and the first reported sequences were manually curated to completion. However, the bottleneck imposed by the requirement for isolates precluded genomic insights for the vast majority of microbial life. Shotgun sequencing of microbial communities, referred to initially as community genomics and subsequently as genome-resolved metagenomics, can circumvent this limitation by obtaining metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs), but gaps, local assembly errors, chimeras and contamination by fragments from other genomes limit the value of these genomes. Here, we discuss genome curation to improve and in some cases achieve complete (circularized, no gaps) MAGs (CMAGs). To date, few CMAGs have been generated, although notably some are from very complex systems such as soil and sediment. Through analysis of ~7000 published complete bacterial isolate genomes, we verify the value of cumulative GC skew in combination with other metrics to establish bacterial genome sequence accuracy. Interestingly, analysis of cumulative GC skew identified potential mis-assemblies in some reference genomes of isolated bacteria and the repeat sequences that likely gave rise to them. We discuss methods that could be implemented in bioinformatic approaches for curation to ensure that metabolic and evolutionary analyses can be based on very high-quality genomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".