MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296682879 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2022.101846

Computational curation and analysis of publicly available protein sequence data from a single protein family

2022· article· en· W4296682879 on OpenAlexaff
Kyra Dougherty, Katalin A. Hudak

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReuseDomain (mathematical analysis)Information retrievalSequence (biology)Public domainParsingData curationData miningDownloadBiological databaseData scienceBiological dataProtein sequencingBioinformaticsWorld Wide WebPeptide sequenceArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wealth of sequence data available on public databases is increasing at an exponential rate, and while tremendous efforts are being made to make access to these resources easier, these data can be challenging for researchers to reuse because submissions are made from numerous laboratories with different biological objectives, resulting in inconsistent naming conventions and sequence content. Researchers can manually inspect each sequence and curate a dataset by hand but automating some of these steps will reduce this burden. This paper is a step-by-step guide describing how to identify all proteins containing a specific domain with the Conserved Protein Domain Architecture Retrieval Tool, download all associated amino acid sequences from NCBI Entrez, tabulate, and clean the data. I will also describe how to extract the full taxonomic information and computationally predict some physicochemical properties of the proteins based on amino acid sequence. The resulting data are applicable to a wide range of bioinformatic analyses where publicly available data are utilized. • Step-by-step guide to gathering, cleaning, and parsing data from publicly available databases for computational analysis, plus supplementation of taxonomic data and physicochemical characteristics from sequence data. • This strategy allows for reuse of existing large-scale publicly available data for different downstream applications to answer novel biological questions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.012

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207