MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114857957 · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-4-16

Domain fusion analysis by applying relational algebra to protein sequence and domain databases

2003· article· en· W2114857957 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Truong, Mitsuhiko Ikura

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Bioinformatics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)UniProtProtein domainSequence databaseHidden Markov modelComputational biologyRelational databaseDatabaseProtein structure databaseSequence (biology)Protein sequencingData miningArtificial intelligenceBiologyPeptide sequenceGeneGeneticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Domain fusion analysis is a useful method to predict functionally linked proteins that may be involved in direct protein-protein interactions or in the same metabolic or signaling pathway. As separate domain databases like BLOCKS, PROSITE, Pfam, SMART, PRINTS-S, ProDom, TIGRFAMs, and amalgamated domain databases like InterPro continue to grow in size and quality, a computational method to perform domain fusion analysis that leverages on these efforts will become increasingly powerful. RESULTS: This paper proposes a computational method employing relational algebra to find domain fusions in protein sequence databases. The feasibility of this method was illustrated on the SWISS-PROT+TrEMBL sequence database using domain predictions from the Pfam HMM (hidden Markov model) database. We identified 235 and 189 putative functionally linked protein partners in H. sapiens and S. cerevisiae, respectively. From scientific literature, we were able to confirm many of these functional linkages, while the remainder offer testable experimental hypothesis. Results can be viewed at http://calcium.uhnres.utoronto.ca/pi. CONCLUSION: As the analysis can be computed quickly on any relational database that supports standard SQL (structured query language), it can be dynamically updated along with the sequence and domain databases, thereby improving the quality of predictions over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC BioinformaticsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207