MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409641002 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012962

Identifying reproducible transcription regulator coexpression patterns with single cell transcriptomics

2025· article· en· W4409641002 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander M. Morin, Paul Pavlidis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute of Mental Health, University of British Columbia
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyRegulatorTranscriptomeTranscription factorLeverage (statistics)WorkflowGene expressionGene regulatory networkCell typeSingle-cell analysisGene expression profilingGeneCellGeneticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proliferation of single cell transcriptomics has potentiated our ability to unveil patterns that reflect dynamic cellular processes such as the regulation of gene transcription. In this study, we leverage a broad collection of single cell RNA-seq data to identify the gene partners whose expression is most coordinated with each human and mouse transcription regulator (TR). We assembled 120 human and 103 mouse scRNA-seq datasets from the literature (>28 million cells), constructing a single cell coexpression network for each. We aimed to understand the consistency of TR coexpression profiles across a broad sampling of biological contexts, rather than examine the preservation of context-specific signals. Our workflow therefore explicitly prioritizes the patterns that are most reproducible across cell types. Towards this goal, we characterize the similarity of each TR's coexpression within and across species. We create single cell coexpression rankings for each TR, demonstrating that this aggregated information recovers literature curated targets on par with ChIP-seq data. We then combine the coexpression and ChIP-seq information to identify candidate regulatory interactions supported across methods and species. Finally, we highlight interactions for the important neural TR ASCL1 to demonstrate how our compiled information can be adopted for community use.

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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207