COSSMO: predicting competitive alternative splice site selection using deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Alternative splice site selection is inherently competitive and the probability of a given splice site to be used also depends on the strength of neighboring sites. Here, we present a new model named the competitive splice site model (COSSMO), which explicitly accounts for these competitive effects and predicts the percent selected index (PSI) distribution over any number of putative splice sites. We model an alternative splicing event as the choice of a 3' acceptor site conditional on a fixed upstream 5' donor site or the choice of a 5' donor site conditional on a fixed 3' acceptor site. We build four different architectures that use convolutional layers, communication layers, long short-term memory and residual networks, respectively, to learn relevant motifs from sequence alone. We also construct a new dataset from genome annotations and RNA-Seq read data that we use to train our model. Results: COSSMO is able to predict the most frequently used splice site with an accuracy of 70% on unseen test data, and achieve an R2 of 0.6 in modeling the PSI distribution. We visualize the motifs that COSSMO learns from sequence and show that COSSMO recognizes the consensus splice site sequences and many known splicing factors with high specificity. Availability and implementation: Model predictions, our training dataset, and code are available from http://cossmo.genes.toronto.edu. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".