A Gaussian process-based definition reveals new and bona fide genetic interactions compared to a multiplicative model in the Gram-negative <i>Escherichia coli</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: A digenic genetic interaction (GI) is observed when mutations in two genes within the same organism yield a phenotype that is different from the expected, given each mutation's individual effects. While multiplicative scoring is widely applied to define GIs, revealing underlying gene functions, it remains unclear if it is the most suitable choice for scoring GIs in Escherichia coli. Here, we assess many different definitions, including the multiplicative model, for mapping functional links between genes and pathways in E.coli. RESULTS: Using our published E.coli GI datasets, we show computationally that a machine learning Gaussian process (GP)-based definition better identifies functional associations among genes than a multiplicative model, which we have experimentally confirmed on a set of gene pairs. Overall, the GP definition improves the detection of GIs, biological reasoning of epistatic connectivity, as well as the quality of GI maps in E.coli, and, potentially, other microbes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code and parameters used to generate the machine learning models in WEKA software were provided in the Supplementary information. 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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.
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".