Motif types, motif locations and base composition patterns around the RNA polyadenylation site in microorganisms, plants and animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The polyadenylation of RNA is critical for gene functioning, but the conserved sequence motifs (often called signal or signature motifs), motif locations and abundances, and base composition patterns around mRNA polyadenylation [poly(A)] sites are still uncharacterized in most species. The evolutionary tendency for poly(A) site selection is still largely unknown. RESULTS: We analyzed the poly(A) site regions of 31 species or phyla. Different groups of species showed different poly(A) signal motifs: UUACUU at the poly(A) site in the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi; UGUAAC (approximately 13 bases upstream of the site) in the alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii; UGUUUG (or UGUUUGUU) at mainly the fourth base downstream of the poly(A) site in the parasite Blastocystis hominis; and AAUAAA at approximately 16 bases and approximately 19 bases upstream of the poly(A) site in animals and plants, respectively. Polyadenylation signal motifs are usually several hundred times more abundant around poly(A) sites than in whole genomes. These predominant motifs usually had very specific locations, whether upstream of, at, or downstream of poly(A) sites, depending on the species or phylum. The poly(A) site was usually an adenosine (A) in all analyzed species except for B. hominis, and there was weak A predominance in C. reinhardtii. Fungi, animals, plants, and the protist Phytophthora infestans shared a general base abundance pattern (or base composition pattern) of "U-rich-A-rich-U-rich-Poly(A) site-U-rich regions", or U-A-U-A-U for short, with some variation for each kingdom or subkingdom. CONCLUSION: This study identified the poly(A) signal motifs, motif locations, and base composition patterns around mRNA poly(A) sites in protists, fungi, plants, and animals and provided insight into poly(A) site evolution.
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".