MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508290351 · doi:10.1101/pdb.prot088039

Functional Profiling Using the <i>Saccharomyces</i> Genome Deletion Project Collections

2016· article· en· W2508290351 on OpenAlexaff
Corey Nislow, Lai Hong Wong, Amy Huei‐Yi Lee, Guri Giaever

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Protocols · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfiling (computer programming)Computational biologyGenomeSaccharomyces cerevisiaeBiologyGeneticsComputer scienceGeneProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to measure and quantify the fitness of an entire organism requires considerably more complex approaches than simply using traditional "omic" methods that examine, for example, the abundance of RNA transcripts, proteins, or metabolites. The yeast deletion collections represent the only systematic, comprehensive set of null alleles for any organism in which such fitness measurements can be assayed. Generated by the Saccharomyces Genome Deletion Project, these collections allow the systematic and parallel analysis of gene functions using any measurable phenotype. The unique 20-bp molecular barcodes engineered into the genome of each deletion strain facilitate the massively parallel analysis of individual fitness. Here, we present functional genomic protocols for use with the yeast deletion collections. We describe how to maintain, propagate, and store the deletion collections and how to perform growth fitness assays on single and parallel screening platforms. Phenotypic fitness analyses of the yeast mutants, described in brief here, provide important insights into biological functions, mechanisms of drug action, and response to environmental stresses. It is important to bear in mind that the specific assays described in this protocol represent some of the many ways in which these collections can be assayed, and in this description particular attention is paid to maximizing throughput using growth as the phenotypic measure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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