MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1759605135 · doi:10.1126/science.aaa8381

An alternative splicing event amplifies evolutionary differences between vertebrates

2015· article· en· W1759605135 on OpenAlexafffund
Serge Gueroussov, Thomas Gonatopoulos-Pournatzis, Manuel Irimia, Bushra Raj, Zhen‐Yuan Lin, Anne‐Claude Gingras, Benjamin J. Blencowe

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHuman Frontier Science ProgramOntario Institute for Regenerative MedicineEuropean Molecular Biology Organization
KeywordsEvolutionary biologyAlternative splicingEvent (particle physics)RNA splicingComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsGenePhysicsExonRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternative splicing (AS) generates extensive transcriptomic and proteomic complexity. However, the functions of species- and lineage-specific splice variants are largely unknown. Here we show that mammalian-specific skipping of polypyrimidine tract-binding protein 1 (PTBP1) exon 9 alters the splicing regulatory activities of PTBP1 and affects the inclusion levels of numerous exons. During neurogenesis, skipping of exon 9 reduces PTBP1 repressive activity so as to facilitate activation of a brain-specific AS program. Engineered skipping of the orthologous exon in chicken cells induces a large number of mammalian-like AS changes in PTBP1 target exons. These results thus reveal that a single exon-skipping event in an RNA binding regulator directs numerous AS changes between species. Our results further suggest that these changes contributed to evolutionary differences in the formation of vertebrate nervous systems.

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 score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations164
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207