MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408952378 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.25.645269

STRkit: precise, read-level genotyping of short tandem repeats using long reads and single-nucleotide variation

2025· preprint· en· W4408952378 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Lougheed, Tomi Pastinen, Guillaume Bourque

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenotypingNanopore sequencingMendelian inheritanceMicrosatelliteGeneticsBiologyTandem repeatHaplotypeComputational biologyGenomeDNA sequencingAlleleGenotypeDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation in short tandem repeats (STRs) is implicated in Mendelian disease and complex traits, but can be difficult to resolve with short-read genome sequencing. We present STRkit , a software package for genotyping STRs using long read sequencing (LRS) that uses nearby single-nucleotide variants to improve genotyping accuracy without a priori haplotype information. We show that STRkit has unique strengths versus other methods: it can use data from both major LRS technologies (Pacific Biosciences HiFi [PB] and Oxford Nanopore [ONT]) to output both allele and read-level copy number and sequence, performs best in benchmarking with F1 scores of 0.9633 and 0.9056 with PB and ONT data respectively, achieves a Mendelian inheritance rate of 97.86% with PB data, and is open source software. STRkit 's features open up new possibilities for association testing, assessing patterns of STR inheritance, and better understanding the functional effects of these notable repeat elements.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.016

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→