MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397689946 · doi:10.1007/978-1-61779-173-4_22

High-Throughput Analyses and Curation of Protein Interactions in Yeast

2011· article· en· W2397689946 on OpenAlexafffund
Shoshana J. Wodak, Jim Vlasblom, Shuye Pu

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids Foundation
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceOrganismModel organismYeastFocus (optics)Computational biologyProtein–protein interactionSaccharomyces cerevisiaeThroughputData scienceKey (lock)Reliability (semiconductor)BiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the model organism in which protein interactions have been most extensively analyzed. The vast majority of these interactions have been characterized by a variety of sophisticated high-throughput techniques probing different aspects of protein association. This chapter summarizes the major techniques, highlights their complementary nature, discusses the data they produce, and highlights some of the biases from which they suffer. A main focus is the key role played by computational methods for processing, analyzing, and validating the large body of noisy data produced by the experimental procedures. It also describes how computational methods are used to extend the coverage and reliability of protein interaction data by integrating information from heterogeneous sources and reviews the current status of literature-curated data on yeast protein interactions stored in specialized databases.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207