MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406419842 · doi:10.1093/genetics/iyaf006

Guidelines for gene and genome assembly nomenclature

2025· article· en· W4406419842 on OpenAlexaff
Ethalinda K. S. Cannon, David Molik, Adam Wright, Huiting Zhang, Loren Honaas, Kapeel Chougule, Sarah Dyer

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceEuropean Molecular Biology LaboratoryWellcome TrustNeurosciences FoundationU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInteroperabilityData scienceComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)GenomicsGenomeStandardizationIdentification (biology)ReuseData qualityGene nomenclatureNomenclatureComputational biologyWorld Wide WebBiologyInformation retrievalTaxonomy (biology)GeneGeneticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid increase in the number of reference-quality genome assemblies presents significant new opportunities for genomic research. However, the absence of standardized naming conventions for genome assemblies and annotations across datasets creates substantial challenges. Inconsistent naming hinders the identification of correct assemblies, complicates the integration of bioinformatics pipelines, and makes it difficult to link assemblies across multiple resources. To address this, we developed a specification for standardizing the naming of reference genome assemblies, to improve consistency across datasets and facilitate interoperability. This specification was created with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) practices in mind, ensuring that reference assemblies are easier to locate, access, and reuse across research communities. Additionally, it has been designed to comply with primary genomic data repositories, including members of the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration consortium, ensuring compatibility with widely used databases. While initially tailored to the agricultural genomics community, the specification is adaptable for use across different taxa. Widespread adoption of this standardized nomenclature would streamline assembly management, better enable cross-species analyses, and improve the reproducibility of research. It would also enhance natural language processing applications that depend on consistent reference assembly names in genomic literature, promoting greater integration and automated analysis of genomic data. This is a good time to consider more consistent genomic data nomenclature as many research communities and data resources are now finding themselves juggling multiple datasets from multiple data providers.

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 score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207