Predicting bacterial transcription factor binding sites through machine learning and structural characterization based on DNA duplex stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transcriptional factors (TFs) in bacteria play a crucial role in gene regulation by binding to specific DNA sequences, thereby assisting in the activation or repression of genes. Despite their central role, deciphering shape recognition of bacterial TFs-DNA interactions remains an intricate challenge. A deeper understanding of DNA secondary structures could greatly enhance our knowledge of how TFs recognize and interact with DNA, thereby elucidating their biological function. In this study, we employed machine learning algorithms to predict transcription factor binding sites (TFBS) and classify them as directed-repeat (DR) or inverted-repeat (IR). To accomplish this, we divided the set of TFBS nucleotide sequences by size, ranging from 8 to 20 base pairs, and converted them into thermodynamic data known as DNA duplex stability (DDS). Our results demonstrate that the Random Forest algorithm accurately predicts TFBS with an average accuracy of over 82% and effectively distinguishes between IR and DR with an accuracy of 89%. Interestingly, upon converting the base pairs of several TFBS-IR into DDS values, we observed a symmetric profile typical of the palindromic structure associated with these architectures. This study presents a novel TFBS prediction model based on a DDS characteristic that may indicate how respective proteins interact with base pairs, thus providing insights into molecular mechanisms underlying bacterial TFs-DNA interaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".