Toward a Comprehensive Atlas of the Physical Interactome of Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Defining protein complexes is critical to virtually all aspects of cell biology. Two recent affinity purification/mass spectrometry studies in Saccharomyces cerevisiae have vastly increased the available protein interaction data. The practical utility of such high throughput interaction sets, however, is substantially decreased by the presence of false positives. Here we created a novel probabilistic metric that takes advantage of the high density of these data, including both the presence and absence of individual associations, to provide a measure of the relative confidence of each potential protein-protein interaction. This analysis largely overcomes the noise inherent in high throughput immunoprecipitation experiments. For example, of the 12,122 binary interactions in the general repository of interaction data (BioGRID) derived from these two studies, we marked 7504 as being of substantially lower confidence. Additionally, applying our metric and a stringent cutoff we identified a set of 9074 interactions (including 4456 that were not among the 12,122 interactions) with accuracy comparable to that of conventional small scale methodologies. Finally we organized proteins into coherent multisubunit complexes using hierarchical clustering. This work thus provides a highly accurate physical interaction map of yeast in a format that is readily accessible to the biological community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".