Different dark conformations function in color-sensitive photosignaling by the sensory rhodopsin I-HtrI complex.

The haloarchaeal phototaxis receptor sensory rhodopsin I (SRI) in complex with its transducer HtrI delivers an attractant signal from excitation with an orange photon and a repellent signal from a second near-UV photon excitation. Using a proteoliposome system with purified SRI in complex with its transducer HtrI, we identified by site-directed fluorescence labeling a site (Ser(155)) on SRI that is conformationally active in signal relay to HtrI. Using site-directed spin labeling of Ser(155)Cys with a nitroxide side chain, we detected a change in conformation following one-photon excitation such that the spin probe exhibits a splitting of the outer hyperfine extrema (2A'(zz)) significantly smaller than that of the electron paramagnetic resonance spectrum in the dark state. The dark conformations of five mutant complexes that do not discriminate between orange and near-UV excitation show shifts to lower or higher 2A'(zz) values correlated with the alterations in their motility behavior to one- and two-photon stimuli. These data are interpreted in terms of a model in which the dark complex is populated by two conformers in the wild type, one that inhibits the CheA kinase (A) and the other that activates it (R), shifted in the dark by mutations and shifted in the wild-type SRI-HtrI complex in opposite directions by one-photon and two-photon reactions.

Selection bias and the cross-validation of regression models for prediction

Strategies are compared for the development of a linear regression model with stochastic (multivariate normal) regressor variables and the subsequent assessment of its predictive ability. Bias and mean squared error of four estimators of predictive performance are evaluated in simulated samples of 32 population correlation matrices. Models including all of the available predictors are compared with those obtained using selected subsets. The subset selection procedures investigated include two stopping rules, C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$, each combined with an 'all possible subsets' or 'forward selection' of variables. The estimators of performance utilized include parametric (MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$) and non-parametric (PRESS) assessments in the entire sample, and two data splitting estimates restricted to a random or balanced (Snee's DUPLEX) 'validation' half sample. The simulations were performed as a designed experiment, with population correlation matrices representing a broad range of data structures.^ The techniques examined for subset selection do not generally result in improved predictions relative to the full model. Approaches using 'forward selection' result in slightly smaller prediction errors and less biased estimators of predictive accuracy than 'all possible subsets' approaches but no differences are detected between the performances of C$\sb{\rm p}$ and S$\sb{\rm p}$. In every case, prediction errors of models obtained by subset selection in either of the half splits exceed those obtained using all predictors and the entire sample.^ Only the random split estimator is conditionally (on $\\beta$) unbiased, however MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ is unbiased on average and PRESS is nearly so in unselected (fixed form) models. When subset selection techniques are used, MSEP$\sb{\rm m}$ and PRESS always underestimate prediction errors, by as much as 27 percent (on average) in small samples. Despite their bias, the mean squared errors (MSE) of these estimators are at least 30 percent less than that of the unbiased random split estimator. The DUPLEX split estimator suffers from large MSE as well as bias, and seems of little value within the context of stochastic regressor variables.^ To maximize predictive accuracy while retaining a reliable estimate of that accuracy, it is recommended that the entire sample be used for model development, and a leave-one-out statistic (e.g. PRESS) be used for assessment. ^

Comparison of machine learning approaches and statistical methods for estimation of airborne chemical exposures

Accurate quantitative estimation of exposure using retrospective data has been one of the most challenging tasks in the exposure assessment field. To improve these estimates, some models have been developed using published exposure databases with their corresponding exposure determinants. These models are designed to be applied to reported exposure determinants obtained from study subjects or exposure levels assigned by an industrial hygienist, so quantitative exposure estimates can be obtained. ^ In an effort to improve the prediction accuracy and generalizability of these models, and taking into account that the limitations encountered in previous studies might be due to limitations in the applicability of traditional statistical methods and concepts, the use of computer science- derived data analysis methods, predominantly machine learning approaches, were proposed and explored in this study. ^ The goal of this study was to develop a set of models using decision trees/ensemble and neural networks methods to predict occupational outcomes based on literature-derived databases, and compare, using cross-validation and data splitting techniques, the resulting prediction capacity to that of traditional regression models. Two cases were addressed: the categorical case, where the exposure level was measured as an exposure rating following the American Industrial Hygiene Association guidelines and the continuous case, where the result of the exposure is expressed as a concentration value. Previously developed literature-based exposure databases for 1,1,1 trichloroethane, methylene dichloride and, trichloroethylene were used. ^ When compared to regression estimations, results showed better accuracy of decision trees/ensemble techniques for the categorical case while neural networks were better for estimation of continuous exposure values. Overrepresentation of classes and overfitting were the main causes for poor neural network performance and accuracy. Estimations based on literature-based databases using machine learning techniques might provide an advantage when they are applied to other methodologies that combine `expert inputs' with current exposure measurements, like the Bayesian Decision Analysis tool. The use of machine learning techniques to more accurately estimate exposures from literature-based exposure databases might represent the starting point for the independence from the expert judgment.^