FastANI, Mash and Dashing equally differentiate between <i>Klebsiella</i> species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacteria of the genus Klebsiella are among the most important multi-drug resistant human pathogens, though they have been isolated from a variety of environments. The importance and ubiquity of these organisms call for quick and accurate methods for their classification. Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) is becoming a standard for species delimitation based on whole genome sequence comparison. However, much faster genome comparison tools have been appearing in the literature. In this study we tested the quality of different approaches for genome-based species delineation against ANI. To this end, we compared 1,189 Klebsiella genomes using measures calculated with Mash, Dashing, and DNA compositional signatures, all of which run in a fraction of the time required to obtain ANI. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses showed equal quality in species discrimination for ANI, Mash and Dashing, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values above 0.99, followed by DNA signatures (AUC: 0.96). Accordingly, groups obtained at optimized cutoffs largely agree with species designation, with ANI, Mash and Dashing producing 15 species-level groups. DNA signatures broke the dataset into more than 30 groups. Testing Mash to map species after adding draft genomes to the dataset also showed excellent results (AUC above 0.99), producing a total of 26 Klebsiella species-level groups. The ecological niches of Klebsiella strains were found to neither be related to species delimitation, nor to protein functional content, suggesting that a single Klebsiella species can have a wide repertoire of ecological functions.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".