Optimizing strategy for the discovery of compositionally-biased or low-complexity regions in proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteins can contain tracts dominated by a subset of amino acids and that have a functional significance. These are often termed 'low-complexity regions' (LCRs) or 'compositionally-biased regions' (CBRs). However, a wide spectrum of compositional bias is possible, and program parameters used to annotate these regions are often arbitrarily chosen. Also, investigators are sometimes interested in longer regions, or sometimes very short ones. Here, two programs for annotating LCRs/CBRs, namely SEG and fLPS, are investigated in detail across the whole expanse of their parameter spaces. In doing so, boundary behaviours are resolved that are used to derive an optimized systematic strategy for annotating LCRs/CBRs. Sets of parameters that progressively annotate or 'cover' more of protein sequence space and are optimized for a given target length have been derived. This progressive annotation can be applied to discern the biological relevance of CBRs, e.g., in parsing domains for experimental constructs and in generating hypotheses. It is also useful for picking out candidate regions of interest of a given target length and bias signature, and for assessing the parameter dependence of annotations. This latter application is demonstrated for a set of human intrinsically-disordered proteins associated with cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".