MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213419736 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009863

Inferring RNA-binding protein target preferences using adversarial domain adaptation

2022· article· en· W4213419736 on OpenAlexafffund
Ying Liu, Ruihui Li, Jiawei Luo, Zhaolei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputational biologyRNA-binding proteinRNAAdversarial systemDomain (mathematical analysis)Domain adaptationProtein domainAdaptation (eye)Computer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligenceGeneticsMathematicsNeuroscienceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precise identification of target sites of RNA-binding proteins (RBP) is important to understand their biochemical and cellular functions. A large amount of experimental data is generated by in vivo and in vitro approaches. The binding preferences determined from these platforms share similar patterns but there are discernable differences between these datasets. Computational methods trained on one dataset do not always work well on another dataset. To address this problem which resembles the classic "domain shift" in deep learning, we adopted the adversarial domain adaptation (ADDA) technique and developed a framework (RBP-ADDA) that can extract RBP binding preferences from an integration of in vivo and vitro datasets. Compared with conventional methods, ADDA has the advantage of working with two input datasets, as it trains the initial neural network for each dataset individually, projects the two datasets onto a feature space, and uses an adversarial framework to derive an optimal network that achieves an optimal discriminative predictive power. In the first step, for each RBP, we include only the in vitro data to pre-train a source network and a task predictor. Next, for the same RBP, we initiate the target network by using the source network and use adversarial domain adaptation to update the target network using both in vitro and in vivo data. These two steps help leverage the in vitro data to improve the prediction on in vivo data, which is typically challenging with a lower signal-to-noise ratio. Finally, to further take the advantage of the fused source and target data, we fine-tune the task predictor using both data. We showed that RBP-ADDA achieved better performance in modeling in vivo RBP binding data than other existing methods as judged by Pearson correlations. It also improved predictive performance on in vitro datasets. We further applied augmentation operations on RBPs with less in vivo data to expand the input data and showed that it can improve prediction performances. Lastly, we explored the predictive interpretability of RBP-ADDA, where we quantified the contribution of the input features by Integrated Gradients and identified nucleotide positions that are important for RBP recognition.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207