StORF-Reporter: finding genes between genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large regions of prokaryotic genomes are currently without any annotation, in part due to well-established limitations of annotation tools. For example, it is routine for genes using alternative start codons to be misreported or completely omitted. Therefore, we present StORF-Reporter, a tool that takes an annotated genome and returns regions that may contain missing CDS genes from unannotated regions. StORF-Reporter consists of two parts. The first begins with the extraction of unannotated regions from an annotated genome. Next, Stop-ORFs (StORFs) are identified in these unannotated regions. StORFs are open reading frames that are delimited by stop codons and thus can capture those genes most often missing in genome annotations. We show this methodology recovers genes missing from canonical genome annotations. We inspect the results of the genomes of model organisms, the pangenome of Escherichia coli, and a set of 5109 prokaryotic genomes of 247 genera from the Ensembl Bacteria database. StORF-Reporter extended the core, soft-core and accessory gene collections, identified novel gene families and extended families into additional genera. The high levels of sequence conservation observed between genera suggest that many of these StORFs are likely to be functional genes that should now be considered for inclusion in canonical annotations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".