Streamlining CRISPR spacer-based bacterial host predictions to decipher the viral dark matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thousands of new phages have recently been discovered thanks to viral metagenomics. These phages are extremely diverse and their genome sequences often do not resemble any known phages. To appreciate their ecological impact, it is important to determine their bacterial hosts. CRISPR spacers can be used to predict hosts of unknown phages, as spacers represent biological records of past phage-bacteria interactions. However, no guidelines have been established to standardize host prediction based on CRISPR spacers. Additionally, there are no tools that use spacers to perform host predictions on large viral datasets. Here, we developed a set of tools that includes all the necessary steps for predicting the hosts of uncharacterized phages. We created a database of >11 million spacers and a program to execute host predictions on large viral datasets. Our host prediction approach uses biological criteria inspired by how CRISPR-Cas naturally work as adaptive immune systems, which make the results easy to interpret. We evaluated the performance using 9484 phages with known hosts and obtained a recall of 49% and a precision of 69%. We also found that this host prediction method yielded higher performance for phages that infect gut-associated bacteria, suggesting it is well suited for gut-virome characterization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.009 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".