MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018288292 · doi:10.1093/nar/gki773

Thermodynamically based DNA strand design

2005· article· en· W2018288292 on OpenAlexafffund
Dan Tulpan, Mirela Andronescu, Sheng Chang, Michael R. Shortreed, Anne Condon, Holger H. Hoos, Lloyd M. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputationBiologyAlgorithmGenetic algorithmDNA microarrayDNAEnergy (signal processing)Base sequenceComputer scienceComputational biologyBiological systemCombinatoricsMathematical optimizationMathematicsGeneticsGeneStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a new algorithm for design of strand sets, for use in DNA computations or universal microarrays. Our algorithm can design sets that satisfy any of several thermodynamic and combinatorial constraints, which aim to maximize desired hybridizations between strands and their complements, while minimizing undesired cross-hybridizations. To heuristically search for good strand sets, our algorithm uses a conflict-driven stochastic local search approach, which is known to be effective in solving comparable search problems. The PairFold program of Andronescu et al. [M. Andronescu, Z. C. Zhang and A. Condon (2005) J. Mol. Biol., 345, 987-1001; M. Andronescu, R. Aguirre-Hernandez, A. Condon, and H. Hoos (2003) Nucleic Acids Res., 31, 3416-3422.] is used to calculate the minimum free energy of hybridization between two mismatched strands. We describe new thermodynamic measures of the quality of strand sets. With respect to these measures of quality, our algorithm consistently finds, within reasonable time, sets that are significantly better than previously published sets in the literature.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
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

Citations63
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicAdvanced biosensing and bioanalysis techniquesFrench-language works237,207