MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412923866 · doi:10.1142/s0219720025500106

Visual-SELEX: a technology ensemble for evaluating aptamer structural similarity via 3D visual spatial conformational analysis

2025· article· en· W4412923866 on OpenAlexaff
Nijia Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAptamerSystematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichmentArtificial intelligenceSimilarity (geometry)VisualizationPattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceStructural similarityComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, the study of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) similarity has focused mainly on the similarity of bases in the same position in the nucleic acid sequence. However, focusing only on the similarity of base sequences has limitations. This similarity evaluation considers only the one-dimensional similarity of ssDNA and cannot fully capture the three-dimensional (3D) structural consistency of aptamers for nucleic acids with 3D structures. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a program that can quickly and accurately evaluate the 3D spatial consistency of ssDNA. To this end, we designed a Visual-SELEX rapid response program, which uses a screening ssDNA sequence set enriched in the DKK1 protein for analysis. The program directly generates a stable 3D structure of ssDNA through coarse-grained simulation and molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, converts the structure into a point cloud model, and then analyzes the similarity of the spatial structure of ssDNA through point cloud model alignment and superposition. The analysis results show that Visual-SELEX can accurately match ssDNAs with dissimilar base fragments but similar 3D spatial structures, providing richer 3D spatial similarity information than sequence similarity comparison alone.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bioinformatics and Computational BiologySame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207