MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073700607

Automated Update, Revision, and Quality Control of the Maize Genome Annotations Using MAKER-P Improves the B73 RefGen_v3 Gene Models and Identifies New Genes.

2015· article· en· W7073700607 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mouseion at the JAXlibrary (Jackson Laboratory) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGlass properties and applications
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnotationPseudogeneGenomeGeneGene predictionGenome projectGene AnnotationQuality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large size and relative complexity of many plant genomes make creation, quality control, and dissemination of high-quality gene structure annotations challenging. In response, we have developed MAKER-P, a fast and easy-to-use genome annotation engine for plants. Here, we report the use of MAKER-P to update and revise the maize (Zea mays) B73 RefGen_v3 annotation build (5b+) in less than 3 h using the iPlant Cyberinfrastructure. MAKER-P identified and annotated 4,466 additional, well-supported protein-coding genes not present in the 5b+ annotation build, added additional untranslated regions to 1,393 5b+ gene models, identified 2,647 5b+ gene models that lack any supporting evidence (despite the use of large and diverse evidence data sets), identified 104,215 pseudogene fragments, and created an additional 2,522 noncoding gene annotations. We also describe a method for de novo training of MAKER-P for the annotation of newly sequenced grass genomes. Collectively, these results lead to the 6a maize genome annotation and demonstrate the utility of MAKER-P for rapid annotation, management, and quality control of grasses and other difficult-to-annotate plant genomes. Plant Physiol 2015 Jan; 167(1):25-39.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Mouseion at the JAXlibrary (Jackson Laboratory)Same topicGlass properties and applicationsFrench-language works237,207