Systematic Identification and Characterization of RNA Editing in Prostate Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RNA editing modifies the sequence of primary transcripts, potentially resulting in profound effects to RNA structure and protein-coding sequence. Recent analyses of RNA sequence data are beginning to provide insights into the distribution of RNA editing across the entire transcriptome, but there are few published matched whole genome and transcriptome sequence datasets, and designing accurate bioinformatics methodology has proven highly challenging. To further characterize the RNA editome, we analyzed 16 paired DNA-RNA sequence libraries from prostate tumor specimens, employing a comprehensive strategy to rescue low coverage sites and minimize false positives. We identified over a hundred thousand putative RNA editing events, a third of which were recurrent in two or more samples, and systematically characterized their type and distribution across the genome. Within genes the majority of events affect non-coding regions such as introns and untranslated regions (UTRs), but 546 genes had RNA editing events predicted to result in deleterious amino acid alterations. Finally, we report a potential association between RNA editing of microRNA binding sites within 3' UTRs and increased transcript expression. These results provide a systematic characterization of the landscape of RNA editing in low coverage sequence data from prostate tumor specimens. We demonstrate further evidence for RNA editing as an important regulatory mechanism and suggest that the RNA editome should be further studied in cancer.
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".