MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987231763 · doi:10.2174/092986608786071085

Function Prediction of Hypothetical Proteins Without Sequence Similarity to Proteins of Known Function (SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS)

2008· article· en· W1987231763 on OpenAlexaff
Sivakumar Kannan, Amy M. Hauth, Gertraud Burger

Bibliographic record

VenueProtein and Peptide Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Sequence (biology)Computational biologyFunction (biology)Computer scienceProtein sequencingProtein functionGenomeDomain (mathematical analysis)BioinformaticsBiologyGeneticsArtificial intelligencePeptide sequenceMathematicsGeneImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Function prediction by sequence-similarity based methods identifies only ∼50% of the proteins deduced from newly sequenced genomes. We have developed an approach to annotate the ‘leftover proteins’ i.e., those which cannot be assigned function using sequence similarity. Our method (MOPS) is pan-taxonomic, predicting fine-grained molecular function (rather than a broad functional category) with high performance. In addition, we developed a validation scheme that assesses predictions using domain-specific knowledge. Keywords: Ab initio protein function prediction, sequence-similarity-free, machine learning, decision trees, mitochondrionencoded hypothetical proteins, domain-specific 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtein and Peptide LettersSame topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207