Comparative Analyses of Gene Co-expression Networks: Implementations and Applications in the Study of Evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Similarities and differences in the associations of biological entities among species can provide us with a better understanding of evolutionary relationships. Often the evolution of new phenotypes results from changes to interactions in pre-existing biological networks and comparing networks across species can identify evidence of conservation or adaptation. Gene co-expression networks (GCNs), constructed from high-throughput gene expression data, can be used to understand evolution and the rise of new phenotypes. The increasing abundance of gene expression data makes GCNs a valuable tool for the study of evolution in non-model organisms. In this paper, we cover motivations for why comparing these networks across species can be valuable for the study of evolution. We also review techniques for comparing GCNs in the context of evolution, including local and global methods of graph alignment. While some protein-protein interaction (PPI) bioinformatic methods can be used to compare co-expression networks, they often disregard highly relevant properties, including the existence of continuous and negative values for edge weights. Also, the lack of comparative datasets in non-model organisms has hindered the study of evolution using PPI networks. We also discuss limitations and challenges associated with cross-species comparison using GCNs, and provide suggestions for utilizing co-expression network alignments as an indispensable tool for evolutionary studies going forward.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".