Identifying reproducible transcription regulator coexpression patterns with single cell transcriptomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".