Evaluating methods for B-cell clonal family assignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adaptive immune response relies on a diverse repertoire of B-cell receptors, each of which is characterized by a distinct sequence resulting from VDJ-recombination. Upon binding to an antigen, B-cells undergo clonal expansion and in a process unique to B-cells the overall binding affinity of the repertoire is further enhanced by somatic hypermutations in the receptor sequence. For B-cell repertoires it is therefore particularly important to analyze the dynamics of clonal expansion and patterns of somatic hypermutations and thus it is necessary to group the sequences into distinct clones to determine the number and identity of expanding clonal families responding to an antigen. Multiple methods are currently used to identify clones from sequences, employing distinct approaches to the problem. Until now there has not been an extensive comparison of how well these methods perform under the same conditions. Furthermore, since this is fundamentally a phylogenetics problem, we speculated that the mPTP method, which delimits species based on an analysis of changes in the underlying process of diversification, might perform as well as or better than existing methods. Here we conducted extensive simulations of B-cell repertoires under a diverse set of conditions and studied errors in clonal assignment and in downstream ancestral state reconstruction. We demonstrated that SCOPer-H consistently yielded superior results across parameters. However, this approach relies on a good reference assembly for the germline immunoglobulin genes which is lacking for many species. Using mPTP had lower error rates than tailor-made immunogenetic methods and should therefore be considered by researchers studying antibody evolution in non-model organisms without a reference genome.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".