ProbeRating: a recommender system to infer binding profiles for nucleic acid-binding proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The interaction between proteins and nucleic acids plays a crucial role in gene regulation and cell function. Determining the binding preferences of nucleic acid-binding proteins (NBPs), namely RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) and transcription factors (TFs), is the key to decipher the protein-nucleic acids interaction code. Today, available NBP binding data from in vivo or in vitro experiments are still limited, which leaves a large portion of NBPs uncovered. Unfortunately, existing computational methods that model the NBP binding preferences are mostly protein specific: they need the experimental data for a specific protein in interest, and thus only focus on experimentally characterized NBPs. The binding preferences of experimentally unexplored NBPs remain largely unknown. RESULTS: Here, we introduce ProbeRating, a nucleic acid recommender system that utilizes techniques from deep learning and word embeddings of natural language processing. ProbeRating is developed to predict binding profiles for unexplored or poorly studied NBPs by exploiting their homologs NBPs which currently have available binding data. Requiring only sequence information as input, ProbeRating adapts FastText from Facebook AI Research to extract biological features. It then builds a neural network-based recommender system. We evaluate the performance of ProbeRating on two different tasks: one for RBP and one for TF. As a result, ProbeRating outperforms previous methods on both tasks. The results show that ProbeRating can be a useful tool to study the binding mechanism for the many NBPs that lack direct experimental evidence. and implementation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The source code is freely available at . 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".