Global Stewardship of Recombinant Plasmid Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recombinant laboratory plasmids (RLPs) are common in biological research and freely shared among academic research laboratories (ARLs), a practice required by many research funding agencies. However, the generation of accurate, reproducible results in experiments utilizing RLPs can be hampered by a lack of accompanying sequence information and metadata. This culture of RLP sharing without knowledge of sequence or etiology is accepted by publishers, not regulated by governments, and outside the realm of bio-industry. In addition, no centralized infrastructure currently exists to collate such data, which at the moment is fragmented across companies, non-profits, and governments and thus is not easily accessed or enacted toward threat assessment. The ubiquity, free exchange, and dual-use risk of RLPs exemplifies a biosecurity threat and elevates the need to characterize their composition to facilitate improved biorisk management by the academic community. A number of common sense solutions are available to create a culture that addresses the biosecurity gap posed by RLP sharing. Culture shift in RLP management will require new norms, effective data management for collation of RLP sequences and metadata, and an incentive structure that encourages sequencing by stakeholders. The next generation of researchers must initiate and champion this shift with support from funding agencies and endorsement from governments and international organizations. Coordination of efforts and stakeholders will require international public/private collaboration, a structure that will be critical to ensure widespread utility as well as the ability of lower-resourced partners to participate, contribute, and benefit.
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 | 0.043 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".