GoldPolish-target: targeted long-read genome assembly polishing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advanced long-read sequencing technologies, such as those from Oxford Nanopore Technologies and Pacific Biosciences, are finding a wide use in de novo genome sequencing projects. However, long reads typically have higher error rates relative to short reads. If left unaddressed, subsequent genome assemblies may exhibit high base error rates that compromise the reliability of downstream analysis. Several specialized error correction tools for genome assemblies have since emerged, employing a range of algorithms and strategies to improve base quality. However, despite these efforts, many genome assembly workflows still produce regions with elevated error rates, such as gaps filled with unpolished or ambiguous bases. To address this, we introduce GoldPolish-Target, a modular targeted sequence polishing pipeline. Coupled with GoldPolish, a linear-time genome assembly algorithm, GoldPolish-Target isolates and polishes user-specified assembly loci, offering a resource-efficient means for polishing targeted regions of draft genomes. RESULTS: Experiments using Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens datasets demonstrate that GoldPolish-Target can reduce insertion/deletion (indel) and mismatch errors by up to 49.2% and 55.4% respectively, achieving base accuracy values upwards of 99.9% (Phred score Q > 30). This polishing accuracy is comparable to the current state-of-the-art, Medaka, while exhibiting up to 27-fold shorter run times and consuming 95% less memory, on average. CONCLUSION: GoldPolish-Target, in contrast to most other polishing tools, offers the ability to target specific regions of a genome assembly for polishing, providing a computationally light-weight and highly scalable solution for base error correction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".