MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Concept of Multiple-Target Anti-miRNA Antisense Oligonucleotide Technology

2010· article· en· W16138469 on OpenAlexafffund
Zhiguo Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOligonucleotidemicroRNAComputational biologyComputer scienceBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multiple-target AMO technology or MT-AMO technology is an innovative strategy, which confers on a single AMO fragment the capability of targeting multiple miRNAs. This modified AMO is single-stranded 2'-O-methyl-modified oligoribonucleotides carrying multiple AMO units, which are engineered into a single unit and are able to simultaneously silence multiple-target miRNAs or multiple miRNA seed families. Studies suggest that the MT-AMO is an improved approach for miRNA target finding and miRNA function validation; it not only enhances the effectiveness of targeting miRNAs but also confers diversity of actions. It has been successfully used to identify target genes and cellular function of several oncogenic miRNAs and of the muscle-specific miRNAs (Lu et al., Nucleic Acids Res 37:e24-e33, 2009). This novel strategy may find its broad application as a useful tool in miRNA research for exploring biological processes involving multiple miRNAs and multiple genes, and the potential as an miRNA therapy for human disease such as cancer and cardiac disorders. This technology was developed by my research laboratory in collaboration with Yang's group (Lu et al., Nucleic Acids Res 37:e24-e33, 2009), and it is similar but distinct from the miRNA Sponge technology developed by Sharp's laboratory in 2007 (Ebert et al., Nat Methods 4:721-726, 2007) and modified by Gentner et al. (Nat Methods 6:63-66, 2009).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicMicroRNA in disease regulationFrench-language works237,207