A Statistical Model for Investigating Binding Probabilities of DNA Nucleotide Sequences Using Microarrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable scientific interest in knowing the probability that a site-specific transcription factor will bind to a given DNA sequence. Microarray methods provide an effective means for assessing the binding affinities of a large number of DNA sequences as demonstrated by Bulyk et al. (2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 98, 7158-7163) in their study of the DNA-binding specificities of Zif268 zinc fingers using microarray technology. In a follow-up investigation, Bulyk, Johnson, and Church (2002, Nucleic Acid Research 30, 1255-1261) studied the interdependence of nucleotides on the binding affinities of transcription proteins. Our article is motivated by this pair of studies. We present a general statistical methodology for analyzing microarray intensity measurements reflecting DNA-protein interactions. The log probability of a protein binding to a DNA sequence on an array is modeled using a linear ANOVA model. This model is convenient because it employs familiar statistical concepts and procedures and also because it is effective for investigating the probability structure of the binding mechanism.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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".