Linking RNA Measurements and Proteomics with Genome-Scale Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-scale metabolic models (GMMs) have been recognized as being powerful tools for capturing system-wide metabolic phenomena and connecting those phenomena to underlying genetic and regulatory changes. By formalizing and codifying the relationship between the levels of gene expression, protein concentration, and reaction flux, metabolic models are able to translate changes in gene expression to their effects on the metabolic network. A number of methods are then available to interpret how those changes are manifest in the metabolic flux distribution. In addition to discussing how gene expression datasets can be interpreted in the context of a metabolic model, this chapter discusses two of the most common methods for analyzing the resulting metabolic network. The chapter begins by demonstrating how a typical microarray dataset can be processed for incorporation into a GMM of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Once the expression states of the reactions in the model are available, the method of directly trimming the metabolic model by removing or constraining reactions with low expression states is demonstrated. This is the simplest and most direct approach to interpret gene expression states, but it is prone to overvaluing the effects of down regulation and it can propagate false negative errors. We therefore also include a more advanced method that uses a mixed-integer linear programming optimization to find a flux distribution that maximizes agreement with global gene expression states. Sample MATLAB code for use with the COBRA toolbox is provided for all methods used.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".