Recognition and coupling of A-to-I edited sites are determined by the tertiary structure of the RNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) editing has been shown to be an important mechanism that increases protein diversity in the brain of organisms from human to fly. The family of ADAR enzymes converts some adenosines of RNA duplexes to inosines through hydrolytic deamination. The adenosine recognition mechanism is still largely unknown. Here, to investigate it, we analyzed a set of selectively edited substrates with a cluster of edited sites. We used a large set of individual transcripts sequenced by the 454 sequencing technique. On average, we analyzed 570 single transcripts per edited region at four different developmental stages from embryogenesis to adulthood. To our knowledge, this is the first time, large-scale sequencing has been used to determine synchronous editing events. We demonstrate that edited sites are only coupled within specific distances from each other. Furthermore, our results show that the coupled sites of editing are positioned on the same side of a helix, indicating that the three-dimensional structure is key in ADAR enzyme substrate recognition. Finally, we propose that editing by the ADAR enzymes is initiated by their attraction to one principal site in the substrate.
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".