RNA‐modifying machines in archaea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been known for nearly half a century that coding and non-coding RNAs (mRNA, and tRNAs and rRNAs respectively) play critical roles in the process of information transfer from DNA to protein. What is both surprising and exciting, are the discoveries in the last decade that cells, particularly eukaryotic cells, contain a plethora of non-coding RNAs and that these RNAs can either possess catalytic activity or can function as integral components of dynamic ribonucleoprotein machines. These machines appear to mediate diverse, complex and essential processes such as intron excision, RNA modification and editing, protein targeting, DNA packaging, etc. Archaea have been shown to possess RNP complexes; some of these are authentic homologues of the eukaryotic complexes that function as machines in the processing, modification and assembly of rRNA into ribosomal subunits. Deciphering how these RNA-containing machines function will require a dissection and analysis of the component parts, an understanding of how the parts fit together and an ability to reassemble the parts into complexes that can function in vitro. This article summarizes our current knowledge about small-non-coding RNAs in Archaea, their roles in ribosome biogenesis and their relationships to the complexes that have been identified in eukaryotic cells.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".