MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270476927 · doi:10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b01018

g2pDB: A Database Mapping Protein Post-Translational Modifications to Genomic Coordinates

2016· article· en· W2270476927 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Keegan, John P. Cortens, Ronald C. Beavis, David Fenyö

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational biologyProteomicsPosttranslational modificationBiologyDatabaseGeneticsComputer scienceGeneBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large scale proteomics have made it possible to broadly screen samples for the presence of many types of post-translational modifications, such as phosphorylation, acetylation, and ubiquitination. This type of data has allowed the localization of these modifications to either a specific site on a proteolytically generated peptide or to within a small domain on the peptide. The resulting modification acceptor sites can then be mapped onto the appropriate protein sequences and the information archived. This paper describes the usage of a very large archive of experimental observations of human post-translational modifications to create a map of the most reproducible modification observations onto the complete set of human protein sequences. This set of modification acceptor sites was then directly translated into the genomic coordinates for the codons for the residues at those sites. We constructed the database g2pDB using this protein-to-codon site mapping information. The information in g2pDB has been made available through a RESTful-style API, allowing researchers to determine which specific protein modifications would be perturbed by a set of observed nucleotide variants determined by high throughput DNA or RNA sequencing.

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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207