Functional similarity of non-coding regions is revealed in phylogenetic average motif score representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Here we frame the cis-regulatory code (that connects the regulatory functions of non-coding regions, such as promoters and UTRs, to their DNA sequences) as a representation building problem. Representation learning has emerged as a new approach to understand function of DNA and proteins, by projecting sequences into high-dimensional feature spaces, where the features are learned from data by a neural network. Inspired by these approaches, we seek to define a feature space where non-coding regions with similar regulatory functions are nearby each other. As a first attempt, we engineered features based on matches to biochemically characterized regulatory motifs in the DNA sequences of non-coding regions. Remarkably, we found that functionally similar promoters and 3’ UTRs could be grouped together in a feature space defined by simple averages of the best match scores in (unaligned) orthologous non-coding regions, which we refer to as phylogenetic average motif scores. Perhaps most important, because this feature space is based on known motifs and not fit to any data, it is fully interpretable and not limited to any particular cell type or experimental context. We find that we can read off known regulatory relationships and evolutionary rewiring from visualizations of phylogenetic average motif score representations, and that predicted regulatory interactions based on neighbors in the feature space are borne out in transcription factor deletion experiments. Phylogenetic averages of match scores to known motifs is a baseline for representation learning applied to non-coding sequences, and may continue to improve as databases of motifs become more complete.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".