Transcriptional Activators Control Splicing and 3′-End Cleavage Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have investigated whether transcriptional activators influence the efficiency of constitutive splicing and 3'-end formation, in addition to transcription levels. Remarkably, strong activators result in higher levels of splicing and 3'-cleavage than weak activators and can control the efficiency of these steps in pre-mRNA processing separately. The pre-mRNA processing stimulatory property of activators is dependent on their binding to promoters, but is not an indirect consequence of the levels of transcripts produced. Moreover, stimulation of splicing and cleavage by a strong activator operates by a mechanism that requires the carboxyl-terminal domain of RNA polymerase II. The splicing stimulatory property of activators was observed for unrelated transcripts and for separate introns within a transcript, indicating a possible general role for strong activators in facilitating pre-mRNA processing levels. The results suggest that the efficiency of constitutive splicing and 3'-end cleavage is closely coordinated with transcription levels by promoter-bound activators.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".