Large-scale genomic analyses with machine learning uncover predictive patterns associated with fungal phytopathogenic lifestyles and traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive plant pathogenic fungi have a global impact, with devastating economic and environmental effects on crops and forests. Biosurveillance, a critical component of threat mitigation, requires risk prediction based on fungal lifestyles and traits. Recent studies have revealed distinct genomic patterns associated with specific groups of plant pathogenic fungi. We sought to establish whether these phytopathogenic genomic patterns hold across diverse taxonomic and ecological groups from the Ascomycota and Basidiomycota, and furthermore, if those patterns can be used in a predictive capacity for biosurveillance. Using a supervised machine learning approach that integrates phylogenetic and genomic data, we analyzed 387 fungal genomes to test a proof-of-concept for the use of genomic signatures in predicting fungal phytopathogenic lifestyles and traits during biosurveillance activities. Our machine learning feature sets were derived from genome annotation data of carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes), peptidases, secondary metabolite clusters (SMCs), transporters, and transcription factors. We found that machine learning could successfully predict fungal lifestyles and traits across taxonomic groups, with the best predictive performance coming from feature sets comprising CAZyme, peptidase, and SMC data. While phylogeny was an important component in most predictions, the inclusion of genomic data improved prediction performance for every lifestyle and trait tested. Plant pathogenicity was one of the best-predicted traits, showing the promise of predictive genomics for biosurveillance applications. Furthermore, our machine learning approach revealed expansions in the number of genes from specific CAZyme and peptidase families in the genomes of plant pathogens compared to non-phytopathogenic genomes (saprotrophs, endo- and ectomycorrhizal fungi). Such genomic feature profiles give insight into the evolution of fungal phytopathogenicity and could be useful to predict the risks of unknown fungi in future biosurveillance activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".