MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BAR expressolog identification: expression profile similarity ranking of homologous genes in plant species

2012· article· en· W2149640650 on OpenAlexafffund
Rohan Patel, Hardeep K. Nahal-Bose, Robert Breit, Nicholas J. Provart

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIowa State UniversitySamuel Roberts Noble Foundation
KeywordsBiologyGeneMedicago truncatulaComputational biologySimilarity (geometry)GeneticsGenomeOrthologous GeneIdentification (biology)Gene AnnotationArabidopsisAnnotationPhylogenetic treeExpression (computer science)Computer scienceBotanyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large numbers of sequences are now readily available for many plant species, allowing easy identification of homologous genes. However, orthologous gene identification across multiple species is made difficult by evolutionary events such as whole-genome or segmental duplications. Several developmental atlases of gene expression have been produced in the past couple of years, and it may be possible to use these transcript abundance data to refine ortholog predictions. In this study, clusters of homologous genes between seven plant species - Arabidopsis, soybean, Medicago truncatula, poplar, barley, maize and rice - were identified. Following this, a pipeline to rank homologs within gene clusters by both sequence and expression profile similarity was devised by determining equivalent tissues between species, with the best expression profile match being termed the 'expressolog'. Five electronic fluorescent pictograph (eFP) browsers were produced as part of this effort, to aid in visualization of gene expression data and to complement existing eFP browsers at the Bio-Array Resource (BAR). Within the eFP browser framework, these expression profile similarity rankings were incorporated into an Expressolog Tree Viewer to allow cross-species homolog browsing by both sequence and expression pattern similarity. Global analyses showed that orthologs with the highest sequence similarity do not necessarily exhibit the highest expression pattern similarity. Other orthologs may show different expression patterns, indicating that such genes may require re-annotation or more specific annotation. Ultimately, it is envisaged that this pipeline will aid in improvement of the functional annotation of genes and translational plant research.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations113
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207