Detecting high-scoring local alignments in pangenome graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Increasing amounts of individual genomes sequenced per species motivate the usage of pangenomic approaches. Pangenomes may be represented as graphical structures, e.g. compacted colored de Bruijn graphs, which offer a low memory usage and facilitate reference-free sequence comparisons. While sequence-to-graph mapping to graphical pangenomes has been studied for some time, no local alignment search tool in the vein of BLAST has been proposed yet. RESULTS: We present a new heuristic method to find maximum scoring local alignments of a DNA query sequence to a pangenome represented as a compacted colored de Bruijn graph. Our approach additionally allows a comparison of similarity among sequences within the pangenome. We show that local alignment scores follow an exponential-tail distribution similar to BLAST scores, and we discuss how to estimate its parameters to separate local alignments representing sequence homology from spurious findings. An implementation of our method is presented, and its performance and usability are shown. Our approach scales sublinearly in running time and memory usage with respect to the number of genomes under consideration. This is an advantage over classical methods that do not make use of sequence similarity within the pangenome. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code and test data are available from https://gitlab.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/gi/plast. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".