Experimental evidence validating the computational inference of functional associations from gene fusion events: a critical survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than a decade ago, a number of methods were proposed for the inference of protein interactions, using whole-genome information from gene clusters, gene fusions and phylogenetic profiles. This structural and evolutionary view of entire genomes has provided a valuable approach for the functional characterization of proteins, especially those without sequence similarity to proteins of known function. Furthermore, this view has raised the real possibility to detect functional associations of genes and their corresponding proteins for any entire genome sequence. Yet, despite these exciting developments, there have been relatively few cases of real use of these methods outside the computational biology field, as reflected from citation analysis. These methods have the potential to be used in high-throughput experimental settings in functional genomics and proteomics to validate results with very high accuracy and good coverage. In this critical survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of 30 most prominent examples of single pairwise protein interaction cases in small-scale studies, where protein interactions have either been detected by gene fusion or yielded additional, corroborating evidence from biochemical observations. Our conclusion is that with the derivation of a validated gold-standard corpus and better data integration with big experiments, gene fusion detection can truly become a valuable tool for large-scale experimental biology.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".