Qualitative Motif Detection in Gene Regulatory Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper motivates the use of qualitative probabilistic networks (QPNs) in conjunction with or in lieu of Bayesian Networks (BNs) for reconstructing gene regulatory networks from microarray expression data. QPNs are qualitative abstractions of Bayesian Networks that replace the conditional probability tables associated with BNs by qualitative influences, which use signs to encode how the values of variables change. We demonstrate that the qualitative influences defined by QPNs exhibit a natural mapping to naturally-occurring patterns of connections, termed network motifs, embedded in Gene Regulatory Networks and present a model that maps QPN constructs to such motifs. The contribution of this paper is that of discovering motifs by mapping their time-series experimental data to QPN influences and using the discovered motifs to aid the process of reconstructing the corresponding gene regulatory network via Dynamic Bayesian Networks (DBNs). The general aim is to compile a model that uses qualitative equivalents of Dynamic Bayesian Networks to explore gene expression networks and their regulatory mechanisms. Although this aim remains under development, the results we have obtained shows success for the discovery of regulatory motifs in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae and their effectiveness in improving the results obtained in terms of reconstruction using DBNs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".