RiboVIEW: a computational framework for visualization, quality control and statistical analysis of ribosome profiling data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, newly developed ribosome profiling methods based on high-throughput sequencing of ribosome-protected mRNA footprints allow to study genome-wide translational changes in detail. However, computational analysis of the sequencing data still represents a bottleneck for many laboratories. Further, specific pipelines for quality control and statistical analysis of ribosome profiling data, providing high levels of both accuracy and confidence, are currently lacking. In this study, we describe automated bioinformatic and statistical diagnoses to perform robust quality control of ribosome profiling data (RiboQC), to efficiently visualize ribosome positions and to estimate ribosome speed (RiboMine) in an unbiased way. We present an R pipeline to setup and undertake the analyses that offers the user an HTML page to scan own data regarding the following aspects: periodicity, ligation and digestion of footprints; reproducibility and batch effects of replicates; drug-related artifacts; unbiased codon enrichment including variability between mRNAs, for A, P and E sites; mining of some causal or confounding factors. We expect our pipeline to allow an optimal use of the wealth of information provided by ribosome profiling experiments.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.007 |
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".