REPrise: de novo interspersed repeat detection using inexact seeding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it