MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185496276 · doi:10.1101/gr.268599.120

Sequence-based correction of barcode bias in massively parallel reporter assays

2021· article· en· W3185496276 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dongwon Lee, Ashish Kapoor, Changhee Lee, Michael Mudgett, M Beer, Aravinda Chakravarti

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthSchool of Medicine, New York UniversityYork University
KeywordsBiologyReporter geneRegulatory sequenceComputational biologyGeneMassively parallelSequence (biology)Identification (biology)Upstream (networking)DNA sequencingGeneticsBarcodeRegulation of gene expressionGene expressionComputer scienceParallel computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Massively parallel reporter assays (MPRAs) are a high-throughput method for evaluating in vitro activities of thousands of candidate cis -regulatory elements (CREs). In these assays, candidate sequences are cloned upstream or downstream from a reporter gene tagged by unique DNA sequences. However, tag sequences may themselves affect reporter gene expression and lead to major potential biases in the measured cis -regulatory activity. Here, we present a sequence-based method for correcting tag-sequence-specific effects and show that our method can significantly reduce this source of variation and improve the identification of functional regulatory variants by MPRAs. We also show that our model captures sequence features associated with post-transcriptional regulation of mRNA. Thus, this new method helps not only to improve detection of regulatory signals in MPRA experiments but also to design better MPRA protocols.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207