Improving candidate Biosynthetic Gene Clusters in fungi through reinforcement learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Precise identification of Biosynthetic Gene Clusters (BGCs) is a challenging task. Performance of BGC discovery tools is limited by their capacity to accurately predict components belonging to candidate BGCs, often overestimating cluster boundaries. To support optimizing the composition and boundaries of candidate BGCs, we propose reinforcement learning approach relying on protein domains and functional annotations from expert curated BGCs. RESULTS: The proposed reinforcement learning method aims to improve candidate BGCs obtained with state-of-the-art tools. It was evaluated on candidate BGCs obtained for two fungal genomes, Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus nidulans. The results highlight an improvement of the gene precision by above 15% for TOUCAN, fungiSMASH and DeepBGC; and cluster precision by above 25% for fungiSMASH and DeepBCG, allowing these tools to obtain almost perfect precision in cluster prediction. This can pave the way of optimizing current prediction of candidate BGCs in fungi, while minimizing the curation effort required by domain experts. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://github.com/bioinfoUQAM/RL-bgc-components. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".