Assessment of SAGE in Transcript Identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An essential step in Serial Analysis of Gene Expression (SAGE) is tag mapping, which refers to the unambiguous determination of the gene represented by a SAGE tag. Current resources for tag mapping are incomplete, and thus do not allow assessment of the efficacy of SAGE in transcript identification. A method of tag mapping is described here and applied to the Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans genomes, which permits detailed SAGE assessment and provides tag-mapping resources that were unavailable previously for these organisms. In our method, a conceptual transcriptome is constructed using genomic sequence and annotation by extending predicted coding regions to include UTRs on the basis of EST and cDNA alignments, UTR length distributions, and polyadenylation signals. Analysis of extracted tags suggests that, using the standard SAGE procedure, expression of 8% of D. melanogaster and 15% of C. elegans genes cannot be detected unambiguously by SAGE due to shared sequence or lack of NlaIII-anchoring enzyme sites. Both increasing tag length by 2-3 bp and using Sau3A instead of NlaIII as the anchoring enzyme increases potential for transcript detection. This work identifies and quantifies genes not amenable to SAGE analysis, in addition to providing tag-to-gene mappings for two model organisms.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".