Gene Network Landscape of the Ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Genome-wide expression data of gene microarrays can be used to infer gene networks. At a cellular level, a gene network provides a picture of the modules in which genes are densely connected, and of the hub genes, which are highly connected with other genes. A gene network is useful to identify the genes involved in the same pathway, in a protein complex or that are co-regulated. In this study, we used different methods to find gene networks in the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila, and describe some important properties of this network, such as modules and hubs. Methodology/Principal Findings: Using 67 single channel microarrays, we constructed the Tetrahymena gene network (TGN) using three methods: the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC), the Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC) and the context likelihood of relatedness (CLR) algorithm. The accuracy and coverage of the three networks were evaluated using four conserved protein complexes in yeast. The CLR network with a Z-score threshold 3.49 was determined to be the most robust. The TGN was partitioned, and 55 modules were found. In addition, analysis of the arbitrarily determined 1200 hubs showed that these hubs could be sorted into six groups according to their expression profiles. We also investigated human disease orthologs in Tetrahymena that are missing in yeast and provide evidence indicating that some of these are involved in the same process in Tetrahymena as in human. Conclusions/Significance: This study constructed a Tetrahymena gene network, provided new insights to the properties of this biological network, and presents an important resource to study Tetrahymena genes at the pathway level.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".