An assessment of genome annotation coverage across the bacterial tree of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although gene-finding in bacterial genomes is relatively straightforward, the automated assignment of gene function is still challenging, resulting in a vast quantity of hypothetical sequences of unknown function. But how prevalent are hypothetical sequences across bacteria, what proportion of genes in different bacterial genomes remain unannotated, and what factors affect annotation completeness? To address these questions, we surveyed over 27 000 bacterial genomes from the Genome Taxonomy Database, and measured genome annotation completeness as a function of annotation method, taxonomy, genome size, 'research bias' and publication date. Our analysis revealed that 52 and 79 % of the average bacterial proteome could be functionally annotated based on protein and domain-based homology searches, respectively. Annotation coverage using protein homology search varied significantly from as low as 14 % in some species to as high as 98 % in others. We found that taxonomy is a major factor influencing annotation completeness, with distinct trends observed across the microbial tree (e.g. the lowest level of completeness was found in the Patescibacteria lineage). Most lineages showed a significant association between genome size and annotation incompleteness, likely reflecting a greater degree of uncharacterized sequences in 'accessory' proteomes than in 'core' proteomes. Finally, research bias, as measured by publication volume, was also an important factor influencing genome annotation completeness, with early model organisms showing high completeness levels relative to other genomes in their own taxonomic lineages. Our work highlights the disparity in annotation coverage across the bacterial tree of life and emphasizes a need for more experimental characterization of accessory proteomes as well as understudied lineages.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".