MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021581669 · doi:10.1093/bfgp/elaa004

Computational methods for predicting 3D genomic organization from high-resolution chromosome conformation capture data

2020· article· en· W3021581669 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Functional Genomics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyChromosome conformation captureChromosomeComputational biologyHigh resolutionEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of high-resolution chromosome conformation capture assays (such as 5C, Hi-C and Pore-C) has allowed for unprecedented sequence-level investigations into the structure-function relationship of the genome. In order to comprehensively understand this relationship, computational tools are required that utilize data generated from these assays to predict 3D genome organization (the 3D genome reconstruction problem). Many computational tools have been developed that answer this need, but a comprehensive comparison of their underlying algorithmic approaches has not been conducted. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of the existing computational tools (from November 2006 to September 2019, inclusive) that can be used to predict 3D genome organizations from high-resolution chromosome conformation capture data. Overall, existing tools were found to use a relatively small set of algorithms from one or more of the following categories: dimensionality reduction, graph/network theory, maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) and statistical modeling. Solutions in each category are far from maturity, and the breadth and depth of various algorithmic categories have not been fully explored. While the tools for predicting 3D structure for a genomic region or single chromosome are diverse, there is a general lack of algorithmic diversity among computational tools for predicting the complete 3D genome organization from high-resolution chromosome conformation capture data.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.230 · 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