MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976496804 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv163

Learning chromatin states with factorized information criteria

2015· article· en· W1976496804 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michiaki Hamada, Yukiteru Ono, Ryohei Fujimaki, Kiyoshi Asai

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceUniversity of TokyoWaseda UniversityResearch Organization of Information and Systems
KeywordsChromatinComputer scienceComputational biologyNucleosomeEpigenomeEpigeneticsGenomeBayesian probabilityChIP-sequencingEpigenomicsBiologyGeneticsArtificial intelligenceDNA methylationDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Recent studies have suggested that both the genome and the genome with epigenetic modifications, the so-called epigenome, play important roles in various biological functions, such as transcription and DNA replication, repair, and recombination. It is well known that specific combinations of histone modifications (e.g. methylations and acetylations) of nucleosomes induce chromatin states that correspond to specific functions of chromatin. Although the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies enables measurement of epigenetic information for entire genomes at high-resolution, the variety of chromatin states has not been completely characterized. RESULTS: In this study, we propose a method to estimate the chromatin states indicated by genome-wide chromatin marks identified by NGS technologies. The proposed method automatically estimates the number of chromatin states and characterize each state on the basis of a hidden Markov model (HMM) in combination with a recently proposed model selection technique, factorized information criteria. The method is expected to provide an unbiased model because it relies on only two adjustable parameters and avoids heuristic procedures as much as possible. Computational experiments with simulated datasets show that our method automatically learns an appropriate model, even in cases where methods that rely on Bayesian information criteria fail to learn the model structures. In addition, we comprehensively compare our method to ChromHMM on three real datasets and show that our method estimates more chromatin states than ChromHMM for those datasets.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207