MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recent advances in proximity-based labeling methods for interactome mapping

2019· preprint· en· W2912096548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiotin and Related Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractomeOpen peer reviewPlant biologyNeuroscienceComputational biologyBiologyComputer sciencePhysiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proximity-based labeling has emerged as a powerful complementary approach to classic affinity purification of multiprotein complexes in the mapping of protein-protein interactions. Ongoing optimization of enzyme tags and delivery methods has improved both temporal and spatial resolution, and the technique has been successfully employed in numerous small-scale (single complex mapping) and large-scale (network mapping) initiatives. When paired with quantitative proteomic approaches, the ability of these assays to provide snapshots of stable and transient interactions over time greatly facilitates the mapping of dynamic interactomes. Furthermore, recent innovations have extended biotin-based proximity labeling techniques such as BioID and APEX beyond classic protein-centric assays (tag a protein to label neighboring proteins) to include RNA-centric (tag an RNA species to label RNA-binding proteins) and DNA-centric (tag a gene locus to label associated protein complexes) assays.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.381 · 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