MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141618567 · doi:10.1142/s012905410500311x

AN AUTOMATA APPROACH TO MATCH GAPPED SEQUENCE TAGS AGAINST PROTEIN DATABASE

2005· article· en· W2141618567 on OpenAlexafffund
Yonghua Han, Bin Ma, Kaizhong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubstringSequence (biology)Sequence databaseString (physics)Computer scienceProtein sequencingDatabaseComputational biologyPeptide sequenceBiologyGeneticsMathematicsData structureProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Biochemistry, tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) is the most common method for peptide and protein identifications. One computational method to get a peptide sequence from the MS/MS data is called de novo sequencing, which is becoming more and more important in this area. However De novo sequencing usually can only confidently determine partial sequences, while the undetermined parts are represented by "mass gaps". We call such a partially determined sequence a gapped sequence tag. When a gapped sequence tag is searched in a database for protein identification, the determined parts should match the database sequence exactly, while each mass gap should match a substring of amino acids whose masses add up to the value of the mass gap. In such a case, the standard string matching algorithm does not work any more. In this paper, we present a new efficient algorithm to find the matches of gapped sequence tags in a protein database.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207