MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551102403 · doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.95

Systematic chemical-genetic and chemical-chemical interaction datasets for prediction of compound synergism

2016· article· en· W2551102403 on OpenAlexafffund
Jan Wildenhain, Michaela Spitzer, Sonam Dolma, Nick Jarvik, R. Clyde White, Marcia Roy, Emma Griffiths, David S. Bellows, Gerard D. Wright, Mike Tyers

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Research in Immunology and CancerUniversité de MontréalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalMcMaster University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthGénome QuébecNational Center for Research ResourcesCanada Research ChairsWellcome Trust
KeywordsBenchmarkingPairwise comparisonBenchmark (surveying)Chemical similarityComputer scienceComputational biologyDrug discoveryData miningArtificial intelligenceBioinformaticsBiologyCluster analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The network structure of biological systems suggests that effective therapeutic intervention may require combinations of agents that act synergistically. However, a dearth of systematic chemical combination datasets have limited the development of predictive algorithms for chemical synergism. Here, we report two large datasets of linked chemical-genetic and chemical-chemical interactions in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We screened 5,518 unique compounds against 242 diverse yeast gene deletion strains to generate an extended chemical-genetic matrix (CGM) of 492,126 chemical-gene interaction measurements. This CGM dataset contained 1,434 genotype-specific inhibitors, termed cryptagens. We selected 128 structurally diverse cryptagens and tested all pairwise combinations to generate a benchmark dataset of 8,128 pairwise chemical-chemical interaction tests for synergy prediction, termed the cryptagen matrix (CM). An accompanying database resource called ChemGRID was developed to enable analysis, visualisation and downloads of all data. The CGM and CM datasets will facilitate the benchmarking of computational approaches for synergy prediction, as well as chemical structure-activity relationship models for anti-fungal drug discovery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207