MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327149980 · doi:10.1101/pdb.prot088807

Synthetic Genetic Array Analysis

2016· article· en· W2327149980 on OpenAlexaff
Elena Kuzmin, Michael Costanzo, Brenda Andrews, Charles Boone

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Protocols · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneticsMutantComputational biologyBiologyGeneGenetic analysisAlleleMutationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic interaction studies have been used to characterize unknown genes, assign membership in pathway and complex, and build a comprehensive functional map of a eukaryotic cell. Synthetic genetic array (SGA) methodology automates yeast genetic analysis and enables systematic mapping of genetic interactions. In its simplest form, SGA consists of a series of replica pinning steps that enable construction of haploid double mutants through automated mating and meiotic recombination. Using this method, a strain carrying a query mutation, such as a deletion allele of a nonessential gene or a conditional temperature-sensitive allele of an essential gene, can be crossed to an input array of yeast mutants, such as the complete set of approximately 5000 viable deletion mutants. The resulting output array of double mutants can be scored for genetic interactions based on estimates of cellular fitness derived from colony-size measurements. The SGA score method can be used to analyze large-scale data sets, whereas small-scale data sets can be analyzed using SGAtools, a simple web-based interface that includes all the necessary analysis steps for quantifying genetic interactions.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.017

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCold Spring Harbor ProtocolsSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207