In Vivo Validation of a Computationally Predicted Conserved Ath5 Target Gene Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
So far, the computational identification of transcription factor binding sites is hampered by the complexity of vertebrate genomes. Here we present an in silico procedure to predict target sites of a transcription factor in complex genomes using its binding site. In a first step sequence, comparison of closely related genomes identifies the binding sites in conserved cis-regulatory regions (phylogenetic footprinting). Subsequently, more remote genomes are introduced into the comparison to identify highly conserved and therefore putatively functional binding sites (phylogenetic filtering). When applied to the binding site of atonal homolog 5 (Ath5 or ATOH7), this procedure efficiently filters evolutionarily conserved binding sites out of more than 300,000 instances in a vertebrate genome. We validate a selection of the linked target genes by showing coexpression with and transcriptional regulation by Ath5. Finally, chromatin immunoprecipitation demonstrates the occupancy of the target gene promoters by Ath5. Thus, our procedure, applied to whole genomes, is a fast and predictive tool to in silico filter the target genes of a given transcription factor with defined binding site.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".