MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391250913 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109002

Graphylo: A deep learning approach for predicting regulatory DNA and RNA sites from whole-genome multiple alignments

2024· article· en· W4391250913 on OpenAlexafffund
Dongjoon Lim, Changhyun Baek, Mathieu Blanchette

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsInterpretabilityDeep learningGenomeConvolutional neural networkGenomicsComputational biologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhylogenetic treeMachine learningBiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focuses on enhancing the prediction of regulatory functional sites in DNA and RNA sequences, a crucial aspect of gene regulation. Current methods, such as motif overrepresentation and machine learning, often lack specificity. To address this issue, the study leverages evolutionary information and introduces Graphylo, a deep-learning approach for predicting transcription factor binding sites in the human genome. Graphylo combines Convolutional Neural Networks for DNA sequences with Graph Convolutional Networks on phylogenetic trees, using information from placental mammals' genomes and evolutionary history. The research demonstrates that Graphylo consistently outperforms both single-species deep learning techniques and methods that incorporate inter-species conservation scores on a wide range of datasets. It achieves this by utilizing a species-based attention model for evolutionary insights and an integrated gradient approach for nucleotide-level model interpretability. This innovative approach offers a promising avenue for improving the accuracy of regulatory site prediction in genomics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207