CLUSTERING AND RE-CLUSTERING FOR PATTERN DISCOVERY IN GENE EXPRESSION DATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combined interpretation of gene expression data and gene sequences is important for the investigation of the intricate relationships of gene expression at the transcription level. The expression data produced by microarray hybridization experiments can lead to the identification of clusters of co-expressed genes that are likely co-regulated by the same regulatory mechanisms. By analyzing the promoter regions of co-expressed genes, the common regulatory patterns characterized by transcription factor binding sites can be revealed. Many clustering algorithms have been used to uncover inherent clusters in gene expression data. In this paper, based on experiments using simulated and real data, we show that the performance of these algorithms could be further improved. For the clustering of expression data typically characterized by a lot of noise, we propose to use a two-phase clustering algorithm consisting of an initial clustering phase and a second re-clustering phase. The proposed algorithm has several desirable features: (i) it utilizes both local and global information by computing both a "local" pairwise distance between two gene expression profiles in Phase 1 and a "global" probabilistic measure of interestingness of cluster patterns in Phase 2, (ii) it distinguishes between relevant and irrelevant expression values when performing re-clustering, and (iii) it makes explicit the patterns discovered in each cluster for possible interpretations. Experimental results show that the proposed algorithm can be an effective algorithm for discovering clusters in the presence of very noisy data. The patterns that are discovered in each cluster are found to be meaningful and statistically significant, and cannot otherwise be easily discovered. Based on these discovered patterns, genes co-expressed under the same experimental conditions and range of expression levels have been identified and evaluated. When identifying regulatory patterns at the promoter regions of the co-expressed genes, we also discovered well-known transcription factor binding sites in them. These binding sites can provide explanations for the co-expressed patterns.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".