MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161666955 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm489

BiasViz: visualization of amino acid biased regions in protein alignments

2007· article· en· W2161666955 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew R. Huska, Henrik Buschmann, Miguel A. Andrade‐Navarro

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsSequence (biology)Source codeComputer scienceVisualizationJavaJava appletProtein sequencingSequence alignmentProtein superfamilyComputational biologyAmino acidPeptide sequenceCode (set theory)Amino acid residueProgramming languageBiologyData miningSet (abstract data type)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summary: About a third of all protein sequences have at least one composition biased region (CBR). Such regions might act as linkers between protein domains but often confer specific binding to various molecules; therefore, their characterization in terms of their boundaries and over-represented residues is important. Analysis of CBRs in a particular sequence can be time consuming if several types of biases have to be explored and their position visualized. Assessment of the significance of the detected CBRs can be approached by comparison to homologous protein sequences. To assist this procedure, we have developed BiasViz, a tool that allows to graphically studying local amino acid composition in protein sequences of a multiple sequence alignment. Availability: BiasViz java applet and source code can be accessed from http://biasviz.sourceforge.net Contact: matthuska@alumni.uwaterloo.ca

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207