MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041726559 · doi:10.1101/gr.6902

Discovery of Regulatory Elements by a Computational Method for Phylogenetic Footprinting

2002· letter· en· W2041726559 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mathieu Blanchette, Martin Tompa

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2002
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeBiologyFootprintingPhylogenetic networkComputational biologyPhylogeneticsConserved sequenceComputational phylogeneticsFunction (biology)Evolutionary biologySet (abstract data type)GeneticsGeneComputer scienceBase sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phylogenetic footprinting is a method for the discovery of regulatory elements in a set of orthologous regulatory regions from multiple species. It does so by identifying the best conserved motifs in those orthologous regions. We describe a computer algorithm designed specifically for this purpose, making use of the phylogenetic relationships among the sequences under study to make more accurate predictions. The program is guaranteed to report all sets of motifs with the lowest parsimony scores, calculated with respect to the phylogenetic tree relating the input species. We report the results of this algorithm on several data sets of interest. A large number of known functional binding sites are identified by our method, but we also find several highly conserved motifs for which no function is yet known.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
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

Citations330
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207