MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045595303 · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaa137

Exploring transcriptional switches from pairwise, temporal and population RNA-Seq data using deepTS

2020· article· en· W3045595303 on OpenAlexaff
Zhixu Qiu, Siyuan Chen, Yuhong Qi, Chunni Liu, Jingjing Zhai, Shang Xie, Chuang Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueBriefings in Bioinformatics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsL'Alliance Boviteq
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPairwise comparisonRNA-SeqTranscriptomeComputer sciencePopulationComputational biologyRNAData miningBiologyGene expressionGeneGeneticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transcriptional switch (TS) is a widely observed phenomenon caused by changes in the relative expression of transcripts from the same gene, in spatial, temporal or other dimensions. TS has been associated with human diseases, plant development and stress responses. Its investigation is often hampered by a lack of suitable tools allowing comprehensive and flexible TS analysis for high-throughput RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) data. Here, we present deepTS, a user-friendly web-based implementation that enables a fully interactive, multifunctional identification, visualization and analysis of TS events for large-scale RNA-Seq datasets from pairwise, temporal and population experiments. deepTS offers rich functionality to streamline RNA-Seq-based TS analysis for both model and non-model organisms and for those with or without reference transcriptome. The presented case studies highlight the capabilities of deepTS and demonstrate its potential for the transcriptome-wide TS analysis of pairwise, temporal and population RNA-Seq data. We believe deepTS will help research groups, regardless of their informatics expertise, perform accessible, reproducible and collaborative TS analyses of large-scale RNA-Seq 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

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 head0.204
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.065 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBriefings in BioinformaticsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207