Evaluation of variant calling for cpn60 barcode sequence-based microbiome profiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amplification and sequencing of conserved genetic barcodes such as the cpn60 gene is a common approach to determining the taxonomic composition of microbiomes. Exact sequence variant calling has been proposed as an alternative to previously established methods for aggregation of sequence reads into operational taxonomic units (OTU). We investigated the utility of variant calling for cpn60 barcode sequences and determined the minimum sequence length required to provide species-level resolution. Sequence data from the 5´ region of the cpn60 barcode amplified from the human vaginal microbiome (n = 45), and a mock community were used to compare variant calling to de novo assembly of reads, and mapping to a reference sequence database in terms of number of OTU formed, and overall community composition. Variant calling resulted in microbiome profiles that were consistent in apparent composition to those generated with the other methods but with significant logistical advantages. Variant calling is rapid, achieves high resolution of taxa, and does not require reference sequence data. Our results further demonstrate that 150 bp from the 5´ end of the cpn60 barcode sequence is sufficient to provide species-level resolution of microbiota.
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 | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".