DROP: Molecular voucher database for identification of <i>Drosophila</i> parasitoids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular identification is increasingly used to speed up biodiversity surveys and laboratory experiments. However, many groups of organisms cannot be reliably identified using standard databases such as GenBank or BOLD due to lack of sequenced voucher specimens identified by experts. Sometimes a large number of sequences are available, but with too many errors to allow identification. Here, we address this problem for parasitoids of Drosophila by introducing a curated open-access molecular reference database, DROP (Drosophila parasitoids). Identifying Drosophila parasitoids is challenging and poses a major impediment to realize the full potential of this model system in studies ranging from molecular mechanisms to food webs, and in biological control of Drosophila suzukii. In DROP, genetic data are linked to voucher specimens and, where possible, the voucher specimens are identified by taxonomists and vetted through direct comparison with primary type material. To initiate DROP, we curated 154 laboratory strains, 856 vouchers, 554 DNA sequences, 16 genomes, 14 transcriptomes, and six proteomes drawn from a total of 183 operational taxonomic units (OTUs): 114 described Drosophila parasitoid species and 69 provisional species. We found species richness of Drosophila parasitoids to be heavily underestimated and provide an updated taxonomic catalogue for the community. DROP offers accurate molecular identification and improves cross-referencing between individual studies that we hope will catalyse research on this diverse and fascinating model system. Our effort should also serve as an example for researchers facing similar molecular identification problems in other groups of organisms.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.020 |
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".