Latent space of a small genetic network: Geometry of dynamics and information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high-dimensional character of most biological systems presents genuine challenges for modeling and prediction. Here we propose a neural network–based approach for dimensionality reduction and analysis of biological gene expression data, using, as a case study, a well-known genetic network in the early Drosophila embryo, the gap gene patterning system. We build an autoencoder compressing the dynamics of spatial gap gene expression into a two-dimensional (2D) latent map. The resulting 2D dynamics suggests an almost linear model, with a small bare set of essential interactions. Maternally defined spatial modes control gap genes positioning, without the classically assumed intricate set of repressive gap gene interactions. This, surprisingly, predicts minimal changes of neighboring gap domains when knocking out gap genes, consistent with previous observations. Latent space geometries in maternal mutants are also consistent with the existence of such spatial modes. Finally, we show how positional information is well defined and interpretable as a polar angle in latent space. Our work illustrates how optimization of small neural networks on medium-sized biological datasets is sufficiently informative to capture essential underlying mechanisms of network function.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".