PlasBin-flow: a flow-based MILP algorithm for plasmid contigs binning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The analysis of bacterial isolates to detect plasmids is important due to their role in the propagation of antimicrobial resistance. In short-read sequence assemblies, both plasmids and bacterial chromosomes are typically split into several contigs of various lengths, making identification of plasmids a challenging problem. In plasmid contig binning, the goal is to distinguish short-read assembly contigs based on their origin into plasmid and chromosomal contigs and subsequently sort plasmid contigs into bins, each bin corresponding to a single plasmid. Previous works on this problem consist of de novo approaches and reference-based approaches. De novo methods rely on contig features such as length, circularity, read coverage, or GC content. Reference-based approaches compare contigs to databases of known plasmids or plasmid markers from finished bacterial genomes. RESULTS: Recent developments suggest that leveraging information contained in the assembly graph improves the accuracy of plasmid binning. We present PlasBin-flow, a hybrid method that defines contig bins as subgraphs of the assembly graph. PlasBin-flow identifies such plasmid subgraphs through a mixed integer linear programming model that relies on the concept of network flow to account for sequencing coverage, while also accounting for the presence of plasmid genes and the GC content that often distinguishes plasmids from chromosomes. We demonstrate the performance of PlasBin-flow on a real dataset of bacterial samples. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/cchauve/PlasBin-flow.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".