Alternative splicing is frequent during early embryonic development in mouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alternative splicing is known to increase the complexity of mammalian transcriptomes since nearly all mammalian genes express multiple pre-mRNA isoforms. However, our knowledge of the extent and function of alternative splicing in early embryonic development is based mainly on a few isolated examples. High throughput technologies now allow us to study genome-wide alternative splicing during mouse development. RESULTS: A genome-wide analysis of alternative isoform expression in embryonic day 8.5, 9.5 and 11.5 mouse embryos and placenta was carried out using a splicing-sensitive exon microarray. We show that alternative splicing and isoform expression is frequent across developmental stages and tissues, and is comparable in frequency to the variation in whole-transcript expression. The genes that are alternatively spliced across our samples are disproportionately involved in important developmental processes. Finally, we find that a number of RNA binding proteins, including putative splicing factors, are differentially expressed and spliced across our samples suggesting that such proteins may be involved in regulating tissue and temporal variation in isoform expression. Using an example of a well characterized splicing factor, Fox2, we demonstrate that changes in Fox2 expression levels can be used to predict changes in inclusion levels of alternative exons that are flanked by Fox2 binding sites. CONCLUSIONS: We propose that alternative splicing is an important developmental regulatory mechanism. We further propose that gene expression should routinely be monitored at both the whole transcript and the isoform level in developmental studies.
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".