Accurate sequencing of DNA motifs able to form alternative (non-B) structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 13% of the human genome at certain motifs have the potential to form noncanonical (non-B) DNA structures (e.g., G-quadruplexes, cruciforms, and Z-DNA), which regulate many cellular processes but also affect the activity of polymerases and helicases. Because sequencing technologies use these enzymes, they might possess increased errors at non-B structures. To evaluate this, we analyzed error rates, read depth, and base quality of Illumina, Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) HiFi, and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing at non-B motifs. All technologies showed altered sequencing success for most non-B motif types, although this could be owing to several factors, including structure formation, biased GC content, and the presence of homopolymers. Single-nucleotide mismatch errors had low biases in HiFi and ONT for all non-B motif types but were increased for G-quadruplexes and Z-DNA in all three technologies. Deletion errors were increased for all non-B types but Z-DNA in Illumina and HiFi, as well as only for G-quadruplexes in ONT. Insertion errors for non-B motifs were highly, moderately, and slightly elevated in Illumina, HiFi, and ONT, respectively. Additionally, we developed a probabilistic approach to determine the number of false positives at non-B motifs depending on sample size and variant frequency, and applied it to publicly available data sets (1000 Genomes, Simons Genome Diversity Project, and gnomAD). We conclude that elevated sequencing errors at non-B DNA motifs should be considered in low-read-depth studies (single-cell, ancient DNA, and pooled-sample population sequencing) and in scoring rare variants. Combining technologies should maximize sequencing accuracy in future studies of non-B DNA.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".