From pairwise to multiple spliced alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Alternative splicing is a ubiquitous process in eukaryotes that allows distinct transcripts to be produced from the same gene. Yet, the study of transcript evolution within a gene family is still in its infancy. One prerequisite for this study is the availability of methods to compare sets of transcripts while accounting for their splicing structure. In this context, we generalize the concept of pairwise spliced alignments (PSpAs) to multiple spliced alignments (MSpAs). MSpAs have several important purposes in addition to empowering the study of the evolution of transcripts. For instance, it is a key to improving the prediction of gene models, which is important to solve the growing problem of genome annotation. Despite its essentialness, a formal definition of the concept and methods to compute MSpAs are still lacking. Results: We introduce the MSpA problem and the SplicedFamAlignMulti (SFAM) method, to compute the MSpA of a gene family. Like most multiple sequence alignment (MSA) methods that are generally greedy heuristic methods assembling pairwise alignments, SFAM combines all PSpAs of coding DNA sequences and gene sequences of a gene family into an MSpA. It produces a single structure that represents the superstructure and models of the gene family. Using real vertebrate and simulated gene family data, we illustrate the utility of SFAM for computing accurate gene family superstructures, MSAs, inferring splicing orthologous groups and improving gene-model annotations. Availability and implementation: The supporting data and implementation of SFAM are freely available at https://github.com/UdeS-CoBIUS/SpliceFamAlignMulti. Supplementary information: 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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.012 |
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".