SGAtools: one-stop analysis and visualization of array-based genetic interaction screens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Screening genome-wide sets of mutants for fitness defects provides a simple but powerful approach for exploring gene function, mapping genetic networks and probing mechanisms of drug action. For yeast and other microorganisms with global mutant collections, genetic or chemical-genetic interactions can be effectively quantified by growing an ordered array of strains on agar plates as individual colonies, and then scoring the colony size changes in response to a genetic or environmental perturbation. To do so, requires efficient tools for the extraction and analysis of quantitative data. Here, we describe SGAtools (http://sgatools.ccbr.utoronto.ca), a web-based analysis system for designer genetic screens. SGAtools outlines a series of guided steps that allow the user to quantify colony sizes from images of agar plates, correct for systematic biases in the observations and calculate a fitness score relative to a control experiment. The data can also be visualized online to explore the colony sizes on individual plates, view the distribution of resulting scores, highlight genes with the strongest signal and perform Gene Ontology enrichment analysis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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".