ArticleScientific reports2026
Predicting FOX gene candidates for oxic nitrogen fixation using multi-omic machine learning and comparative bioinformatics.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nitrogen fixation in oxygenic cyanobacteria depends on a system of genes that protect oxygen-sensitive nitrogenase, many of which likely remain uncharacterized. Here we predict FOX (fixation in the presence of oxygen) gene candidates in Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 by integrating nitrogen step-down RNA-seq (0/6/12/21 hours), quantitative proteomics, promoter architecture, genomic context, and reciprocal-best-hit conservation across diazotrophic and non-diazotrophic cyanobacteria. Using 68 literature-validated FOX genes and 835 conserved non-essential genes as a proxy negative class, we trained logistic regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost models and evaluated them using 20 repeated stratified 80/20 train–test splits. The best models achieved ROC–AUC up to 0.80 and average precision up to 0.55 and precision among the top 20 ranked genes reached 0.39 versus a 0.075 prevalence baseline. Model interpretation highlights late step-down induction, diazotroph-biased conservation, and genomic neighborhood signals as leading predictors. We generated genome-wide FOX probability scores used primarily for candidate ranking, nominating conserved genes spanning heterocyst envelope processes as well as broader redox, metabolism, and electron-pool regulation. We release these predictions and a public web-based optimizer that applies comparative-bioinformatics filters and size constraints to propose candidate accessory-gene complements for experimental testing and heterologous reconstitution efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.