Boosting tissue-specific prediction of active cis-regulatory regions through deep learning and Bayesian optimization techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cis-regulatory regions (CRRs) are non-coding regions of the DNA that fine control the spatio-temporal pattern of transcription; they are involved in a wide range of pivotal processes such as the development of specific cell-lines/tissues and the dynamic cell response to physiological stimuli. Recent studies showed that genetic variants occurring in CRRs are strongly correlated with pathogenicity or deleteriousness. Considering the central role of CRRs in the regulation of physiological and pathological conditions, the correct identification of CRRs and of their tissue-specific activity status through Machine Learning methods plays a major role in dissecting the impact of genetic variants on human diseases. Unfortunately, the problem is still open, though some promising results have been already reported by (deep) machine-learning based methods that predict active promoters and enhancers in specific tissues or cell lines by encoding epigenetic or spectral features directly extracted from DNA sequences. RESULTS: We present the experiments we performed to compare two Deep Neural Networks, a Feed-Forward Neural Network model working on epigenomic features, and a Convolutional Neural Network model working only on genomic sequence, targeted to the identification of enhancer- and promoter-activity in specific cell lines. While performing experiments to understand how the experimental setup influences the prediction performance of the methods, we particularly focused on (1) automatic model selection performed by Bayesian optimization and (2) exploring different data rebalancing setups for reducing negative unbalancing effects. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that (1) automatic model selection by Bayesian optimization improves the quality of the learner; (2) data rebalancing considerably impacts the prediction performance of the models; test set rebalancing may provide over-optimistic results, and should therefore be cautiously applied; (3) despite working on sequence data, convolutional models obtain performance close to those of feed forward models working on epigenomic information, which suggests that also sequence data carries informative content for CRR-activity prediction. We therefore suggest combining both models/data types in future works.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".