Systematic Mapping of Chemical–Genetic Interactions in <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical-genetic interactions (CGIs) describe a phenomenon where the effects of a chemical compound (i.e., a small molecule) on cell growth are dependent on a particular gene. CGIs can reveal important functional information about genes and can also be powerful indicators of a compound's mechanism of action. Mapping CGIs can lead to the discovery of new chemical probes, which, in contrast to genetic perturbations, operate at the level of the gene product (or pathway) and can be fast-acting, tunable, and reversible. The simple culture conditions required for yeast and its rapid growth, as well as the availability of a complete set of barcoded gene deletion strains, facilitate systematic mapping of CGIs in this organism. This process involves two basic steps: first, screening chemical libraries to identify bioactive compounds affecting growth and, second, measuring the effects of these compounds on genome-wide collections of mutant strains. Here, we introduce protocols for both steps that have great potential for the discovery and development of new small-molecule tools and medicines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".