MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401537043 · doi:10.3390/v16081293

A Standardized Pipeline for Assembly and Annotation of African Swine Fever Virus Genome

2024· article· en· W4401537043 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Spinard, Mark Dinhobl, Cassidy N. G. Erdelyan, Jacob Fenster, Hillary Birtley, Nicolas Tesler, Sten Calvelage, Mikael Leijon, Lucilla Steinaa, Vivian O’Donnell, Sandra Blome, Armanda D. S. Bastos, Elizabeth Ramírez-Medina, Anna Lacasta, Karl Ståhl, Hua‐Ji Qiu, Dachrit Nilubol, Chandana Tennakoon, Charles Maesembe, Bonto Faburay, Aruna Ambagala, David T. Williams, Paolo Ribeca, Manuel V. Borca, Douglas P. Gladue

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersOak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationOak Ridge Associated UniversitiesU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsAnnotationGenomePipeline (software)African swine fever virusSequence assemblyReference genomeOutbreakComputational biologyDNA sequencingWhole genome sequencingComputer scienceBiologyGeneticsVirusVirologyDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obtaining a complete good-quality sequence and annotation for the long double-stranded DNA genome of the African swine fever virus (ASFV) from next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has proven difficult, despite the increasing availability of reference genome sequences and the increasing affordability of NGS. A gap analysis conducted by the global African swine fever research alliance (GARA) partners identified that a standardized, automatic pipeline for NGS analysis was urgently needed, particularly for new outbreak strains. Whilst there are several diagnostic and research labs worldwide that collect isolates of the ASFV from outbreaks, many do not have the capability to analyze, annotate, and format NGS data from outbreaks for submission to NCBI, and some publicly available ASFV genomes have missing or incorrect annotations. We developed an automated, standardized pipeline for the analysis of NGS reads that directly provides users with assemblies and annotations formatted for their submission to NCBI. This pipeline is freely available on GitHub and has been tested through the GARA partners by examining two previously sequenced ASFV genomes; this study also aimed to assess the accuracy and limitations of two strategies present within the pipeline: reference-based (Illumina reads) and de novo assembly (Illumina and Nanopore reads) strategies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207