Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Daniel L. Mace
dblp:06/427
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 2 · 1 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 72% Medical and health informatics · 28% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bioinformatics and computational biology
bioimage informatics |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Extraction and comparison of gene expression patterns from 2D RNA in situ hybridization images · Bioinform. 2010 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › gene expression analysis › gene expression pattern analysis
gene expression pattern discovery |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Extraction and comparison of gene expression patterns from 2D RNA in situ hybridization images · Bioinform. 2010 |
Medical and health informatics › medical image registration
joint registration and segmentation |
0.1 | 1 | 2010 | Extraction and comparison of gene expression patterns from 2D RNA in situ hybridization images · Bioinform. 2010 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology
developmental biology |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Extraction and comparison of gene expression patterns from 2D RNA in situ hybridization images · Bioinform. 2010 |
Bioinformatics and computational biology › developmental biology
drosophila embryogenesis |
0.0 | 1 | 2010 | Extraction and comparison of gene expression patterns from 2D RNA in situ hybridization images · Bioinform. 2010 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
mutual information · 0.1monte carlo swap sampler · 0.1haar wavelet distance · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Automatic Annotation of Spatial Expression Patterns via Sparse Bayesian Factor ModelsabstractAdvances in reporters for gene expression have made it possible to document and quantify expression patterns in 2D-4D. In contrast to microarrays, which provide data for many genes but averaged and/or at low resolution, images reveal the high spatial dynamics of gene expression. Developing computational methods to compare, annotate, and model gene expression based on images is imperative, considering that available data are rapidly increasing. We have developed a sparse Bayesian factor analysis model in which the observed expression diversity of among a large set of high-dimensional images is modeled by a small number of hidden common factors. We apply this approach on embryonic expression patterns from a Drosophila RNA in situ image database, and show that the automatically inferred factors provide for a meaningful decomposition and represent common co-regulation or biological functions. The low-dimensional set of factor mixing weights is further used as features by a classifier to annotate expression patterns with functional categories. On human-curated annotations, our sparse approach reaches similar or better classification of expression patterns at different developmental stages, when compared to other automatic image annotation methods using thousands of hard-to-interpret features. Our study therefore outlines a general framework for large microscopy data sets, in which both the generative model itself, as well as its application for analysis tasks such as automated annotation, can provide insight into biological questions. Iulian Pruteanu-Malinici, Daniel L. Mace, Uwe Ohler |
PLoS Comput. Biol. | 2 |
| 2010 | Extraction and comparison of gene expression patterns from 2D RNA in situ hybridization imagesabstractMOTIVATION: Recent advancements in high-throughput imaging have created new large datasets with tens of thousands of gene expression images. Methods for capturing these spatial and/or temporal expression patterns include in situ hybridization or fluorescent reporter constructs or tags, and results are still frequently assessed by subjective qualitative comparisons. In order to deal with available large datasets, fully automated analysis methods must be developed to properly normalize and model spatial expression patterns. RESULTS: We have developed image segmentation and registration methods to identify and extract spatial gene expression patterns from RNA in situ hybridization experiments of Drosophila embryos. These methods allow us to normalize and extract expression information for 78,621 images from 3724 genes across six time stages. The similarity between gene expression patterns is computed using four scoring metrics: mean squared error, Haar wavelet distance, mutual information and spatial mutual information (SMI). We additionally propose a strategy to calculate the significance of the similarity between two expression images, by generating surrogate datasets with similar spatial expression patterns using a Monte Carlo swap sampler. On data from an early development time stage, we show that SMI provides the most biologically relevant metric of comparison, and that our significance testing generalizes metrics to achieve similar performance. We exemplify the application of spatial metrics on the well-known Drosophila segmentation network. AVAILABILITY: A Java webstart application to register and compare patterns, as well as all source code, are available from: http://tools.genome.duke.edu/generegulation/image_analysis/insitu CONTACT: [email protected] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Daniel L. Mace, Nicole Varnado, Erwin Frise, Uwe Ohler |
Bioinform. | 1 |