MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993568797 · doi:10.1142/s0219720015500134

Identification of biomarker genes for resistance to a pathogen by a novel method for meta-analysis of single-channel microarray datasets

2015· article· en· W1993568797 on OpenAlexaff
Piotr Iwo Wójcik, Thérèse Ouellet, Margaret Balcerzak, Witold Dzwinel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroarray analysis techniquesDNA microarrayMicroarrayGeneBiologyComputational biologyGene chip analysisMicroarray databasesIdentification (biology)Data miningComputer scienceGeneticsGene expressionBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The search for fast and reliable methods allowing for extraction of biomarker genes, e.g. responsible for a plant resistance to a certain pathogen, is one of the most important and highly exploited data mining problem in bioinformatics. Here we describe a simple and efficient method suitable for combining results from multiple single-channel microarray experiments for meta-analysis. A new technique presented here makes use of the fuzzy set logic for the initial gene selection and of the machine learning algorithm AdaBoost to retrieve a set of genes where expression profiles are the most different between the resistant and susceptible classes. As a proof of concept, our method has been applied to the analysis of a gene expression dataset composed of many independent microarray experiments on wheat head tissue, to identify genes that are biomarkers of resistance to the fungus Fusarium graminearum. We used microarray data from many experiments performed on wheat lines of various resistance level. The resulting set of genes was validated by qPCR experiments.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational BiologySame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207