How low can you go? Short-read polishing of Oxford Nanopore bacterial genome assemblies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is now possible to assemble near-perfect bacterial genomes using Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) long reads, but short-read polishing is still required for perfection. However, the effect of short-read depth on polishing performance is not well understood. Here, we introduce Pypolca (with default and careful parameters) and Polypolish v0.6.0 (with a new careful parameter). We then show that: (1) all polishers other than Pypolca-careful, Polypolish-default and Polypolish-careful commonly introduce false-positive errors at low depth; (2) most of the benefit of short-read polishing occurs by 25× depth; (3) Polypolish-careful never introduces false-positive errors at any depth; and (4) Pypolca-careful is the single most effective polisher. Overall, we recommend the following polishing strategies: Polypolish-careful alone when depth is very low (<5×), Polypolish-careful and Pypolca-careful when depth is low (5–25×), and Polypolish-default and Pypolca-careful when depth is sufficient (>25×). Data Summary Pypolca is open-source and freely available on Bioconda, PyPI, and GitHub ( github.com/gbouras13/pypolca ). Polypolish is open-source and freely available on Bioconda and GitHub ( github.com/rrwick/Polypolish ). All code and data required to reproduce analyses and figures are available at github.com/gbouras13/depth_vs_polishing_analysis . All FASTQ sequencing reads are available at BioProject PRJNA1042815 . A detailed list of accessions can be found in Table S1.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
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".