MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404722864 · doi:10.1186/s12859-024-05941-0

Plaseval: a framework for comparing and evaluating plasmid detection tools

2024· article· en· W4404722864 on OpenAlexafffund
Aniket Mane, Haley Sanderson, Aaron P. White, Rahat Zaheer, Robert G. Beiko, Cédric Chauve

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Bioinformatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of SaskatchewanSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsDNA microarrayPlasmidComputational biologyComputer scienceBiologyGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Plasmids play a major role in the transfer of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes among bacteria via horizontal gene transfer. The identification of plasmids in short-read assemblies is a challenging problem and a very active research area. Plasmid binning aims at detecting, in a draft genome assembly, groups (bins) of contigs likely to originate from the same plasmid. Several methods for plasmid binning have been developed recently, such as PlasBin-flow, HyAsP, gplas, MOB-suite, and plasmidSPAdes. This motivates the problem of evaluating the performances of plasmid binning methods, either against a given ground truth or between them. RESULTS: We describe PlasEval, a novel method aimed at comparing the results of plasmid binning tools. PlasEval computes a dissimilarity measure between two sets of plasmid bins, that can originate either from two plasmid binning tools, or from a plasmid binning tool and a ground truth set of plasmid bins. The PlasEval dissimilarity accounts for the contig content of plasmid bins, the length of contigs and is repeat-aware. Moreover, the dissimilarity score computed by PlasEval is broken down into several parts, that allows to understand qualitative differences between the compared sets of plasmid bins. We illustrate the use of PlasEval by benchmarking four recently developed plasmid binning tools-PlasBin-flow, HyAsP, gplas, and MOB-recon-on a data set of 53 E. coli bacterial genomes. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the results of plasmid binning methods using PlasEval shows that their behaviour varies significantly. PlasEval can be used to decide which specific plasmid binning method should be used for a specific dataset. The disagreement between different methods also suggests that the problem of plasmid binning on short-read contigs requires further research. We believe that PlasEval can prove to be an effective tool in this regard. PlasEval is publicly available at https://github.com/acme92/PlasEval.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0150.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC BioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207