Probabilistic model based on circular statistics for quantifying coverage depth dynamics originating from DNA replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the development of DNA sequencing technology, static omics profiling in microbial communities, such as taxonomic and functional gene composition determination, has become possible. Additionally, the recently proposed in situ growth rate estimation method allows the applicable range of current comparative metagenomics to be extended to dynamic profiling. However, with this method, the applicable target range is presently limited. Furthermore, the characteristics of coverage depth during replication have not been sufficiently investigated. RESULTS: We developed a probabilistic model that mimics coverage depth dynamics. This statistical model explains the bias that occurs in the coverage depth due to DNA replication and errors that arise from coverage depth observation. Although our method requires a complete genome sequence, it involves a stable to low coverage depth (>0.01×). We also evaluated the estimation using real whole-genome sequence datasets and reproduced the growth dynamics observed in previous studies. By utilizing a circular distribution in the model, our method facilitates the quantification of unmeasured coverage depth features, including peakedness, skewness, and degree of density, around the replication origin. When we applied the model to time-series culture samples, the skewness parameter, which indicates the asymmetry, was stable over time; however, the peakedness and degree of density parameters, which indicate the concentration level at the replication origin, changed dynamically. Furthermore, we demonstrated the activity measurement of multiple replication origins in a single chromosome. CONCLUSIONS: We devised a novel framework for quantifying coverage depth dynamics. Our study is expected to serve as a basis for replication activity estimation from a broader perspective using the statistical model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".