Composite Genome Quality Index for Pathogenic Bacterial Genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-quality bacterial genomes are essential for robust comparative genomics, reliable taxonomic assignment, and accurate pathogen and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance. Yet, public repositories still contain highly heterogeneous assemblies, and genome quality is often judged using single metrics in isolation. Here we develop an integrative Genome Quality Index (GQI) that combines four complementary metrics—including BUSCO single-copy completeness, contig number, N50, and unmapped read percentage—into a composite, interpretable score. We re-assembled and evaluated 474 pathogenic bacterial genomes submitted from South Korea using a standardized Illumina-based pipeline and validated the framework on an independent Enterobacteriaceae dataset (n = 5781). Species-level analyses and unsupervised clustering revealed pronounced variation in genome quality (one-way ANOVA, p < 1.05 × 10−33), with Cronobacter sakazakii and Listeria monocytogenes showing consistently high GQI scores, whereas Mycobacterium tuberculosis exhibited broad variability, including clear low-quality outliers. After log-transforming skewed variables, contig count and N50 remained strongly negatively correlated (r = −0.83), while BUSCO completeness showed moderate positive association with N50 and negative association with unmapped reads. GQI scores spanned 0.23–0.96, with most genomes clustering between 0.70 and 0.85. A Random Forest classifier trained on the four raw metrics predicted GQI-based quality tiers (low, medium, high) with 97% accuracy. From the top-decile genomes, we derived empirical thresholds like BUSCO ≥ 98.6%, contigs ≤ 30, N50 ≥ 1 Mb, and unmapped reads ≤ 0.82% that refine existing recommendations and provide actionable curation criteria. Our framework complements tools such as CheckM, gVolante, and Hybracter by offering a platform-agnostic composite scoring system that can be integrated into submission workflows and surveillance pipelines to systematically flag low-quality genomes and improve the reliability of microbial genomics.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".