New meta-analysis tools reveal common transcriptional regulatory basis for multiple determinants of behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental problem in meta-analysis is how to systematically combine information from multiple statistical tests to rigorously evaluate a single overarching hypothesis. This problem occurs in systems biology when attempting to map genomic attributes to complex phenotypes such as behavior. Behavior and other complex phenotypes are influenced by intrinsic and environmental determinants that act on the transcriptome, but little is known about how these determinants interact at the molecular level. We developed an informatic technique that identifies statistically significant meta-associations between gene expression patterns and transcription factor combinations. Deploying this technique for brain transcriptome profiles from ca. 400 individual bees, we show that diverse determinants of behavior rely on shared combinations of transcription factors. These relationships were revealed only when we considered complex and variable regulatory rules, suggesting that these shared transcription factors are used in distinct ways by different determinants. This regulatory code would have been missed by traditional gene coexpression or cis-regulatory analytic methods. We expect that our meta-analysis tools will be useful for a broad array of problems in systems biology and other fields.
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 | 0.039 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".