MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052019583

Positional weight matrix as a sequence motif detector

2008· other· en· W7052019583 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2008
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsequenceMotif (music)Sequence (biology)ClosenessPattern recognition (psychology)RNA splicingGenBankScore
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In biological sequence research, the positional weight matrix (PWM) is often used for motif signal detection. A set of experimentally verified oligonucleotides known to be functional subsequences, which can be bound by a transcription factor (TF), as translational initiation sites or pre-mRNA splicing sites, are collected and aligned. The frequency of each nucleotide A, C, G, or T at each column of the alignment is calculated in the matrix. Once a PWM is constructed, it can be used to search from a nucleotide sequence for the subsequences that possibly perform the same function. The match between a subsequence and a PWM is usually described by a score function, which measures the closeness of the subsequence to the PWM as compared with the given background. However, selection of threshold scores that legitimately qualify a functional subsequence has been a great challenge. Many laboratories have attempted tackling this problem; but there is no significant breakthrough so far. In this chapter, we discuss the characteristics of a PWM and factors that affect motif predictions and propose a new score function that is tied into information content and statistical expectation of a PWM. We also apply this score function in the PWMs from public databases and compare it favorably with the broadly used Match method.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.309
Teacher spread0.303 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207