MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112717966 · doi:10.1101/gr.4140006

Locating mammalian transcription factor binding sites: A survey of computational and experimental techniques

2006· review· en· W2112717966 on OpenAlex
Laura Elnitski, Victor X. Jin, Peggy Farnham, Steven J.M. Jones

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsBiologyIn silicoComputational biologyTranscription factorDNA binding siteGenomicsGenomeGeneticsGeneGene expressionPromoter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fields such as genomics and systems biology are built on the synergism between computational and experimental techniques. This type of synergism is especially important in accomplishing goals like identifying all functional transcription factor binding sites in vertebrate genomes. Precise detection of these elements is a prerequisite to deciphering the complex regulatory networks that direct tissue specific and lineage specific patterns of gene expression. This review summarizes approaches for in silico, in vitro, and in vivo identification of transcription factor binding sites. A variety of techniques useful for localized- and high-throughput analyses are discussed here, with emphasis on aspects of data generation and verification.

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.284 · 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