In silico analyses identify sequence contamination thresholds for Nanopore-generated SARS-CoV-2 sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought molecular biology and genomic sequencing into the public consciousness and lexicon. With an emphasis on rapid turnaround, genomic data informed both diagnostic and surveillance decisions for the current pandemic at a previously unheard-of scale. The surge in the submission of genomic data to publicly available databases proved essential as comparing different genome sequences offers a wealth of knowledge, including phylogenetic links, modes of transmission, rates of evolution, and the impact of mutations on infection and disease severity. However, the scale of the pandemic has meant that sequencing runs are rarely repeated due to limited sample material and/or the availability of sequencing resources, resulting in the upload of some imperfect runs to public repositories. As a result, it is crucial to investigate the data obtained from these imperfect runs to determine whether the results are reliable prior to depositing them in a public database. Numerous studies have identified a variety of sources of contamination in public next-generation sequencing (NGS) data as the number of NGS studies increases along with the diversity of sequencing technologies and procedures. For this study, we conducted an in silico experiment with known SARS-CoV-2 sequences produced from Oxford Nanopore Technologies sequencing to investigate the effect of contamination on lineage calls and single nucleotide variants (SNVs). A contamination threshold below which runs are expected to generate accurate lineage calls and maintain genome-relatedness and integrity was identified. Together, these findings provide a benchmark below which imperfect runs may be considered robust for reporting results to both stakeholders and public repositories and reduce the need for repeat or wasted runs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".