Statistical extraction of Drosophila cis-regulatory modules using exhaustive assessment of local word frequency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcription regulatory regions in higher eukaryotes are often represented by cis-regulatory modules (CRM) and are responsible for the formation of specific spatial and temporal gene expression patterns. These extended, approximately 1 KB, regions are found far from coding sequences and cannot be extracted from genome on the basis of their relative position to the coding regions. RESULTS: To explore the feasibility of CRM extraction from a genome, we generated an original training set, containing annotated sequence data for most of the known developmental CRMs from Drosophila. Based on this set of experimental data, we developed a strategy for statistical extraction of cis-regulatory modules from the genome, using exhaustive analysis of local word frequency (LWF). To assess the performance of our analysis, we measured the correlation between predictions generated by the LWF algorithm and the distribution of conserved non-coding regions in a number of Drosophila developmental genes. CONCLUSIONS: In most of the cases tested, we observed high correlation (up to 0.6-0.8, measured on the entire gene locus) between the two independent techniques. We discuss computational strategies available for extraction of Drosophila CRMs and possible extensions of these methods.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".