Composite functional module inference: detecting cooperation between transcriptional regulation and protein interaction by mantel test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional modules are basic units of cell function, and exploring them is important for understanding the organization, regulation and execution of cell processes. Functional modules in single biological networks (e.g., the protein-protein interaction network), have been the focus of recent studies. Functional modules in the integrated network are composite functional modules, which imply the complex relationships involving multiple biological interaction types, and detect them will help us understand the complexity of cell processes. RESULTS: We aimed to detect composite functional modules containing co-transcriptional regulation interaction, and protein-protein interaction, in our pre-constructed integrated network of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We computationally extracted 15 composite functional modules, and found structural consistency between co-transcriptional regulation interaction sub-network and protein-protein interaction sub-network that was well correlated with their functional hierarchy. This type of composite functional modules was compact in structure, and was found to participate in essential cell processes such as oxidative phosphorylation and RNA splicing. CONCLUSIONS: The structure of composite functional modules containing co-transcriptional regulation interaction, and protein-protein interaction reflected the cooperation of transcriptional regulation and protein function implementation, and was indicative of their important roles in essential cell functions. In addition, their structural and functional characteristics were closely related, and suggesting the complexity of the cell regulatory system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".