MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2332954283 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152809

Computational Analysis of the Predicted Evolutionary Conservation of Human Phosphorylation Sites

2016· article· en· W2332954283 on OpenAlexafffund
Brett Trost, Anthony Kusalik, Scott Napper

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGenome Canada
KeywordsPhosphorylationProtein phosphorylationBiologyConserved sequenceKinaseProteomeComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsProtein kinase AGenePeptide sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein kinase-mediated phosphorylation is among the most important post-translational modifications. However, few phosphorylation sites have been experimentally identified for most species, making it difficult to determine the degree to which phosphorylation sites are conserved. The goal of this study was to use computational methods to characterize the conservation of human phosphorylation sites in a wide variety of eukaryotes. Using experimentally-determined human sites as input, homologous phosphorylation sites were predicted in all 432 eukaryotes for which complete proteomes were available. For each pair of species, we calculated phosphorylation site conservation as the number of phosphorylation sites found in both species divided by the number found in at least one of the two species. A clustering of the species based on this conservation measure was concordant with phylogenies based on traditional genomic measures. For a subset of the 432 species, phosphorylation site conservation was compared to conservation of both protein kinases and proteins in general. Protein kinases exhibited the highest degree of conservation, while general proteins were less conserved and phosphorylation sites were least conserved. Although preliminary, these data tentatively suggest that variation in phosphorylation sites may play a larger role in explaining phenotypic differences among organisms than differences in the complements of protein kinases or general proteins.

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)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→