MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Systematic Mapping of Genetic Interaction Networks

2008· review· en· W2138470019 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genetics · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome Canada
KeywordsBiologyGenetic screenSchizosaccharomyces pombeModel organismDrosophila melanogasterCaenorhabditis elegansGeneticsComputational biologySaccharomyces cerevisiaePhenotypeYeastSchizosaccharomycesSystems biologySaccharomycesGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic interactions influencing a phenotype of interest can be identified systematically using libraries of genetic tools that perturb biological systems in a defined manner. Systematic screens conducted in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have identified thousands of genetic interactions and provided insight into the global structure of biological networks. Techniques enabling systematic genetic interaction mapping have been extended to other single-celled organisms, the bacteria Escherichia coli and the yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe, opening the way to comparative investigations of interaction networks. Genetic interaction screens in Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila melanogaster, and mammalian models are helping to improve our understanding of metazoan-specific signaling pathways. Together, our emerging knowledge of the genetic wiring diagrams of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells is providing a new understanding of the relationship between genotype and phenotype.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it