Rescuing biologically relevant consensus regions across replicated samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Protein-DNA binding sites of ChIP-seq experiments are identified where the binding affinity is significant based on a given threshold. The choice of the threshold is a trade-off between conservative region identification and discarding weak, but true binding sites. RESULTS: We rescue weak binding sites using MSPC, which efficiently exploits replicates to lower the threshold required to identify a site while keeping a low false-positive rate, and we compare it to IDR, a widely used post-processing method for identifying highly reproducible peaks across replicates. We observe several master transcription regulators (e.g., SP1 and GATA3) and HDAC2-GATA1 regulatory networks on rescued regions in K562 cell line. CONCLUSIONS: We argue the biological relevance of weak binding sites and the information they add when rescued by MSPC. An implementation of the proposed extended MSPC methodology and the scripts to reproduce the performed analysis are freely available at https://genometric.github.io/MSPC/ ; MSPC is distributed as a command-line application and an R package available from Bioconductor ( https://doi.org/doi:10.18129/B9.bioc.rmspc ).
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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".