A model for sequential evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SELEX) data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Systematic Evolution of Ligands by EXponential enrichment (SELEX) experiment begins in round one with a random pool of oligonucleotides in equilibrium solution with a target. Over a few rounds, oligonucleotides having a high affinity for the target are selected. Data from a high throughput SELEX experiment consists of lists of thousands of oligonucleotides sampled after each round. Thus far, SELEX experiments have been very good at suggesting the highest affinity oligonucleotide, but modeling lower affinity recognition site variants has been difficult. Furthermore, an alignment step has always been used prior to analyzing SELEX data. We present a novel model, based on a biochemical parametrization of SELEX, which allows us to use data from all rounds to estimate the affinities of the oligonucleotides. Most notably, our model also aligns the oligonucleotides. We use our model to analyze a SELEX experiment containing double stranded DNA oligonucleotides and the transcription factor Bicoid as the target. Our SELEX model outperformed other published methods for predicting putative binding sites for Bicoid as indicated by the results of an in-vivo ChIP-chip experiment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".