MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Barcode Sequencing for Understanding Drug–Gene Interactions

2012· article· en· W62973568 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Smith, Tanja Durbic, Saranya Kittanakom, Guri Giaever, Corey Nislow

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene expression and cancer classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Human Genome Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBarcodeComputational biologyDNA sequencingBiologyIllumina dye sequencingGeneticsGeneComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology, methods previously developed for microarrays have been adapted for use by NGS. Here we describe in detail a protocol for Barcode analysis by sequencing (Bar-seq) to assess pooled competitive growth of individually barcoded yeast deletion mutants. This protocol has been optimized on two sequencing platforms: Illumina's Genome Analyzer IIx/HiSeq2000 and Life Technologies SOLiD3/5500. In addition, we provide guidelines for assessment of human knockdown cells using short-hairpin RNAs (shRNA) and an Illumina sequencing readout.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicGene expression and cancer classificationFrench-language works237,207