REPrise: de novo interspersed repeat detection using inexact seeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interspersed repeats occupy a large part of many eukaryotic genomes, and thus their accurate annotation is essential for various genome analyses. Database-free de novo repeat detection approaches are powerful for annotating genomes that lack well-curated repeat databases. However, existing tools do not yet have sufficient repeat detection performance. RESULTS: In this study, we developed REPrise, a de novo interspersed repeat detection software program based on a seed-and-extension method. Although the algorithm of REPrise is similar to that of RepeatScout, which is currently the de facto standard tool, we incorporated three unique techniques into REPrise: inexact seeding, affine gap scoring and loose masking. Analyses of rice and simulation genome datasets showed that REPrise outperformed RepeatScout in terms of sensitivity, especially when the repeat sequences contained many mutations. Furthermore, when applied to the complete human genome dataset T2T-CHM13, REPrise demonstrated the potential to detect novel repeat sequence families. CONCLUSION: REPrise can detect interspersed repeats with high sensitivity even in long genomes. Our software enhances repeat annotation in diverse genomic studies, contributing to a deeper understanding of genomic structures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".