MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2950464686 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1705867114

High-throughput characterization of protein–protein interactions by reprogramming yeast mating

2017· article· en· W2950464686 on OpenAlexaff
David Younger, S. A. Berger, David Baker, Eric Klavins

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHoward Hughes Medical InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsYeastBottleneckProtein–protein interactionMating of yeastThroughputComputational biologyBiologyTwo-hybrid screeningReprogrammingCharacterization (materials science)Saccharomyces cerevisiaeCell biologyGeneticsComputer scienceGeneNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance De novo design of protein binders often requires experimental screening to select functional variants from a design library. We have achieved high-throughput, quantitative characterization of protein–protein binding interactions without requiring purified recombinant proteins, by linking interaction strength with yeast mating. Using a next-generation sequencing output, we have characterized protein networks consisting of thousands of pairwise interactions in a single tube and have demonstrated the effect of changing the binding environment. This approach addresses an existing bottleneck in protein binder design by enabling the high-throughput and quantitative characterization of binding strength between designed protein libraries and multiple target proteins in a fully defined environment.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations93
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences→Same topicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects→French-language works237,207→