MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W10925699

Yeast genomics and proteomics in drug discovery and target validation.

2003· article· en· W10925699 on OpenAlexaff
Ainslie B. Parsons, Ron Geyer, Timothy R. Hughes, Charles Boone

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrug discoveryComputational biologyProteomicsSaccharomyces cerevisiaeBudding yeastYeastIdentification (biology)GenomicsChemical geneticsFunctional genomicsDrug developmentBiologyDrug targetBioinformaticsDrugGeneticsGenomeBiochemistrySmall moleculeGenePharmacology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small, cell permeable, and target-specific chemical ligands are highly valuable, not only as therapeutics but also as research tools. The synthesis, identification and characterization of these compounds is often a difficult task. The straightforward genetics of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and the high degree of conservation of basic cellular processes between yeast and higher organisms makes yeast an excellent tool for drug development studies, particularly in regards to anticancer and anti-fungal drug discovery. Recent advances in yeast functional genomics and proteomics studies are changing the field of yeast research. Many of these new technologies are readily applicable to drug target identification and other aspects of drug discovery. This review will focus on current genetic, genomic, and proteomic methodologies in S. cerevisiae that have the potential to be useful in drug discovery and target validation.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
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

Citations49
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207