MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388839981 · doi:10.1101/2023.11.20.567879

Metagenome profiling and containment estimation through abundance-corrected k-mer sketching with sylph

2023· preprint· en· W4388839981 on OpenAlexaff
Jim Shaw, Yun William Yu

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetagenomicsGenomeRefSeqComputational biologyProfiling (computer programming)Computer scienceBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Profiling metagenomes against databases allows for the detection and quantification of mi-crobes, even at low abundances where assembly is not possible. We introduce sylph ( https://github.com/bluenote-1577/sylph ), a metagenome profiler that estimates genome-to-metagenome containment average nucleotide identity (ANI) through zero-inflated Poisson k-mer statistics, enabling ANI-based taxa detection. Sylph is the most accurate method on the CAMI2 marine dataset, and compared to Kraken2 for multi-sample profiling, sylph takes 10× less CPU time and uses 30× less memory. Sylph’s ANI estimates provide an orthogonal signal to abundance, enabling an ANI-based metagenome-wide association study for Parkinson’s disease (PD) against 289,232 genomes while confirming known butyrate-PD associations at the strain level. Sylph takes < 1 minute and 16 GB of RAM to profile against 85,205 prokaryotic and 2,917,521 viral genomes, detecting 30× more viral sequences in the human gut compared to RefSeq. Sylph offers precise, efficient profiling with accurate containment ANI estimation for even low-coverage genomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207