An Improved Sequencing-Based Bioinformatics Pipeline to Track the Distribution and Clonal Architecture of Proviral Integration Sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combined application of linear amplification-mediated PCR (LAM-PCR) protocols with next-generation sequencing (NGS) has had a large impact on our understanding of retroviral pathogenesis. Previously, considerable effort has been expended to optimize NGS methods to explore the genome-wide distribution of proviral integration sites and the clonal architecture of clinically important retroviruses like human T-cell leukemia virus type-1 (HTLV-1). Once sequencing data are generated, the application of rigorous bioinformatics analysis is central to the biological interpretation of the data. To better exploit the potential information available through these methods, we developed an optimized bioinformatics pipeline to analyze NGS clonality datasets. We found that short-read aligners, specifically designed to manage NGS datasets, provide increased speed, significantly reducing processing time and decreasing the computational burden. This is achieved while also accounting for sequencing base quality. We demonstrate the utility of an additional trimming step in the workflow, which adjusts for the number of reads supporting each insertion site. In addition, we developed a recall procedure to reduce bias associated with proviral integration within low complexity regions of the genome, providing a more accurate estimation of clone abundance. Finally, we recommend the application of a "clean-and-recover" step to clonality datasets generated from large cohorts and longitudinal studies. In summary, we report an optimized bioinformatics workflow for NGS clonality analysis and describe a new set of steps to guide the computational process. We demonstrate that the application of this protocol to the analysis of HTLV-1 and bovine leukemia virus (BLV) clonality datasets improves the quality of data processing and provides a more accurate definition of the clonal landscape in infected individuals. The optimized workflow and analysis recommendations can be implemented in the majority of bioinformatics pipelines developed to analyze LAM-PCR-based NGS clonality datasets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".