Semi-supervised Learning Predicts Approximately One Third of the Alternative Splicing Isoforms as Functional Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative splicing acts on transcripts from almost all human multi-exon genes. Notwithstanding its ubiquity, fundamental ramifications of splicing on protein expression remain unresolved. The number and identity of spliced transcripts that form stably folded proteins remain the sources of considerable debate, due largely to low coverage of experimental methods and the resulting absence of negative data. We circumvent this issue by developing a semi-supervised learning algorithm, positive unlabeled learning for splicing elucidation (PULSE; http://www.kimlab.org/software/pulse), which uses 48 features spanning various categories. We validated its accuracy on sets of bona fide protein isoforms and directly on mass spectrometry (MS) spectra for an overall AU-ROC of 0.85. We predict that around 32% of "exon skipping" alternative splicing events produce stable proteins, suggesting that the process engenders a significant number of previously uncharacterized proteins. We also provide insights into the distribution of positive isoforms in various functional classes and into the structural effects of alternative splicing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".