MUSI: an integrated system for identifying multiple specificity from very large peptide or nucleic acid data sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peptide recognition domains and transcription factors play crucial roles in cellular signaling. They bind linear stretches of amino acids or nucleotides, respectively, with high specificity. Experimental techniques that assess the binding specificity of these domains, such as microarrays or phage display, can retrieve thousands of distinct ligands, providing detailed insight into binding specificity. In particular, the advent of next-generation sequencing has recently increased the throughput of such methods by several orders of magnitude. These advances have helped reveal the presence of distinct binding specificity classes that co-exist within a set of ligands interacting with the same target. Here, we introduce a software system called MUSI that can rapidly analyze very large data sets of binding sequences to determine the relevant binding specificity patterns. Our pipeline provides two major advances. First, it can detect previously unrecognized multiple specificity patterns in any data set. Second, it offers integrated processing of very large data sets from next-generation sequencing machines. The results are visualized as multiple sequence logos describing the different binding preferences of the protein under investigation. We demonstrate the performance of MUSI by analyzing recent phage display data for human SH3 domains as well as microarray data for mouse transcription factors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".