Noncoding regions of<i>C. elegans</i>mRNA undergo selective adenosine to inosine deamination and contain a small number of editing sites per transcript
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ADARs (Adenosine deaminases that act on RNA) "edit" RNA by converting adenosines to inosines within double-stranded regions. The primary targets of ADARs are long duplexes present within noncoding regions of mRNAs, such as introns and 3' untranslated regions (UTRs). Because adenosine and inosine have different base-pairing properties, editing within these regions can alter splicing and recognition by small RNAs. However, despite numerous studies identifying multiple editing sites in these genomic regions, little is known about the extent to which editing sites co-occur on individual transcripts or the functional output of these combinatorial editing events. To begin to address these questions, we performed an ultra-deep sequencing analysis of 4 Caenorhabditis elegans 3' UTRs that are known ADAR targets. Synchronous editing events were determined for the long duplexes in vivo. Furthermore, the validity of each editing event was confirmed by sequencing the same regions of mRNA from worms that lack A-to-I editing. This analysis identified a large number of editing sites that can occur within each 3' UTR, but interestingly, each individual transcript contained only a small fraction of these A-to-I editing events. In addition, editing patterns were not random, indicating that an editing event can affect the efficiency of editing at subsequent adenosines. Furthermore, we identified specific sites that can be both positively and negatively correlated with additional sites leading to mutually exclusive editing patterns. These results suggest that editing in noncoding regions is selective and hyper-editing of cellular RNAs is rare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".