Shifted Transversal Design smart-pooling for high coverage interactome mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Smart-pooling," in which test reagents are multiplexed in a highly redundant manner, is a promising strategy for achieving high efficiency, sensitivity, and specificity in systems-level projects. However, previous applications relied on low redundancy designs that do not leverage the full potential of smart-pooling, and more powerful theoretical constructions, such as the Shifted Transversal Design (STD), lack experimental validation. Here we evaluate STD smart-pooling in yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) interactome mapping. We employed two STD designs and two established methods to perform ORFeome-wide Y2H screens with 12 baits. We found that STD pooling achieves similar levels of sensitivity and specificity as one-on-one array-based Y2H, while the costs and workloads are divided by three. The screening-sequencing approach is the most cost- and labor-efficient, yet STD identifies about twofold more interactions. Screening-sequencing remains an appropriate method for quickly producing low-coverage interactomes, while STD pooling appears as the method of choice for obtaining maps with higher coverage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".