RBM6-RBM5 transcription-induced chimeras are differentially expressed in tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Transcription-induced chimerism, a mechanism involving the transcription and intergenic splicing of two consecutive genes, has recently been estimated to account for approximately 5% of the human transcriptome. Despite this prevalence, the regulation and function of these fused transcripts remains largely uncharacterised. RESULTS: We identified three novel transcription-induced chimeras resulting from the intergenic splicing of a single RNA transcript incorporating the two neighbouring 3p21.3 tumour suppressor locus genes, RBM6 and RBM5, which encode the RNA Binding Motif protein 6 and RNA Binding Motif protein 5, respectively. Each of the three novel chimeric transcripts lacked exons 3, 6, 20 and 21 of RBM6 and exon 1 of RBM5. Differences between the transcripts were associated with the presence or absence of exon 4, exon 5 and a 17 nucleotide (nt) sequence from intron 10 of RBM6. All three chimeric transcripts incorporated the canonical splice sites from both genes (excluding the 17 nt intron 10 insertion). Differential expression was observed in tumour tissue compared to non-tumour tissue, and amongst tumour types. In breast tumour tissue, chimeric expression was associated with elevated levels of RBM6 and RBM5 mRNA, and increased tumour size. No protein expression was detected by in vitro transcription/translation. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that RBM6 mRNA experiences altered co-transcriptional gene regulation in certain cancers. The results also suggest that RBM6-RBM5 transcription-induced chimerism might be a process that is linked to the tumour-associated increased transcriptional activity of the RBM6 gene. It appears that none of the transcription-induced chimeras generates a protein product; however, the novel alternative splicing, which affects putative functional domains within exons 3, 6 and 11 of RBM6, does suggest that the generation of these chimeric transcripts has functional relevance. Finally, the association of chimeric expression with breast tumour size suggests that RBM6-RBM5 chimeric expression may be a potential tumour differentiation marker.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".