MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401799177 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.110807

Quick and effective approximation of in silico saturation mutagenesis experiments with first-order taylor expansion

2024· article· en· W4401799177 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Sasse, Maria Chikina, Sara Mostafavi

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersUniversity of Washington
KeywordsSaturated mutagenesisIn silicoComputational biologyFunction (biology)Sequence (biology)MutagenesisTaylor seriesSaturation (graph theory)Computer scienceBiologyMutantGeneticsMathematicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To understand the decision process of genomic sequence-to-function models, explainable AI algorithms determine the importance of each nucleotide in a given input sequence to the model's predictions and enable discovery of cis- regulatory motifs for gene regulation. The most commonly applied method is in silico saturation mutagenesis (ISM) because its per-nucleotide importance scores can be intuitively understood as the computational counterpart to in vivo saturation mutagenesis experiments. While ISM is highly interpretable, it is computationally challenging to perform for many sequences, and becomes prohibitive as the length of the input sequences and size of the model grows. Here, we use the first-order Taylor approximation to approximate ISM values from the model's gradient, which reduces its computation cost to a single forward pass for an input sequence. We show that the Taylor ISM (TISM) approximation is robust across different model ablations, random initializations, training parameters, and dataset sizes.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207