EffectiveDB—updates and novel features for a better annotation of bacterial secreted proteins and Type III, IV, VI secretion systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein secretion systems play a key role in the interaction of bacteria and hosts. EffectiveDB (http://effectivedb.org) contains pre-calculated predictions of bacterial secreted proteins and of intact secretion systems. Here we describe a major update of the database, which was previously featured in the NAR Database Issue. EffectiveDB bundles various tools to recognize Type III secretion signals, conserved binding sites of Type III chaperones, Type IV secretion peptides, eukaryotic-like domains and subcellular targeting signals in the host. Beyond the analysis of arbitrary protein sequence collections, the new release of EffectiveDB also provides a 'genome-mode', in which protein sequences from nearly complete genomes or metagenomic bins can be screened for the presence of three important secretion systems (Type III, IV, VI). EffectiveDB contains pre-calculated predictions for currently 1677 bacterial genomes from the EggNOG 4.0 database and for additional bacterial genomes from NCBI RefSeq. The new, user-friendly and informative web portal offers a submission tool for running the EffectiveDB prediction tools on user-provided data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.020 |
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".