MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111451842 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv284

Identification of C2H2-ZF binding preferences from ChIP-seq data using RCADE

2015· article· en· W2111451842 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamed S. Najafabadi, Mihai Albu, Timothy R. Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIdentification (biology)ChipComputer scienceSoftwareData miningProgramming languageTelecommunicationsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Current methods for motif discovery from chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (ChIP-seq) data often identify non-targeted transcription factor (TF) motifs, and are even further limited when peak sequences are similar due to common ancestry rather than common binding factors. The latter aspect particularly affects a large number of proteins from the Cys2His2 zinc finger (C2H2-ZF) class of TFs, as their binding sites are often dominated by endogenous retroelements that have highly similar sequences. Here, we present recognition code-assisted discovery of regulatory elements (RCADE) for motif discovery from C2H2-ZF ChIP-seq data. RCADE combines predictions from a DNA recognition code of C2H2-ZFs with ChIP-seq data to identify models that represent the genuine DNA binding preferences of C2H2-ZF proteins. We show that RCADE is able to identify generalizable binding models even from peaks that are exclusively located within the repeat regions of the genome, where state-of-the-art motif finding approaches largely fail. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: RCADE is available as a webserver and also for download at http://rcade.ccbr.utoronto.ca/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. CONTACT: t.hughes@utoronto.ca.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations35
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207