MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556607074 · doi:10.1002/0471142905.hg1112s73

High‐Throughput Multiplex Sequencing of miRNA

2012· article· en· W1556607074 on OpenAlexfundno aff
François Vigneault, Dmitry Ter‐Ovanesyan, Shahar Alon, Seda Eminaga, Danos C. Christodoulou, Jonathan G. Seidman, Eli Eisenberg, George M. Church

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Protocols in Human Genetics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Human Genome Research InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteRagon Institute of MGH, MIT and HarvardCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMultiplexmicroRNAIllumina dye sequencingDNA sequencingComputational biologyHumMultiplexingAdapter (computing)BiologyDeep sequencingComputer scienceGeneticsGeneGenomeTelecommunicationsComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Next-generation sequencing offers many advantages over other methods of microRNA (miRNA) expression profiling, such as sample throughput and the capability to discover novel miRNAs. As the sequencing depth of current sequencing platforms exceeds what is necessary to quantify miRNAs, multiplexing several samples in one sequencing run offers a significant cost advantage. Although previous studies have achieved this goal by adding bar codes to miRNA libraries at the ligation step, this was recently shown to introduce significant bias into the miRNA expression data. This bias can be avoided, however, by bar coding the miRNA libraries at the PCR step instead. Here, we describe a user-friendly PCR bar-coding method of preparing multiplexed microRNA libraries for Illumina-based sequencing. The method also prevents the production of adapter dimers and can be completed in one day.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.371
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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations49
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Protocols in Human GeneticsSame topicMicroRNA in disease regulationFrench-language works237,207