Evaluating Sequence Alignment Tools for Antimicrobial Resistance Gene Detection in Assembly Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is an escalating global health threat, often driven by the horizontal gene transfer (HGT) of resistance genes. Detecting AMR genes and understanding their genomic context within bacterial populations is crucial for mitigating the spread of resistance. In this study, we evaluate the performance of three sequence alignment tools-Bandage, SPAligner, and GraphAligner-in identifying AMR gene sequences from assembly and de Bruijn graphs, which are commonly used in microbial genome assembly. Efficiently identifying these genes allows for the detection of neighboring genetic elements and possible HGT events, contributing to a deeper understanding of AMR dissemination. We compare the performance of the tools both qualitatively and quantitatively, analyzing the precision, computational efficiency, and accuracy in detecting AMR-related sequences. Our analysis reveals that Bandage offers the most precise and efficient identification of AMR gene sequences, followed by GraphAligner and SPAligner. The comparison includes evaluating the similarity of paths returned by each tool and measuring output accuracy using a modified edit distance metric. These results highlight Bandage's potential for contributing to the accurate identification and study of AMR genes in bacterial populations, offering important insights into resistance mechanisms and potential targets for mitigating AMR spread.
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 | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".