Integration of Expressed Sequence Tag Data Flanking Predicted RNA Secondary Structures Facilitates Novel Non-Coding RNA Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many computational methods have been used to predict novel non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), but none, to our knowledge, have explicitly investigated the impact of integrating existing cDNA-based Expressed Sequence Tag (EST) data that flank structural RNA predictions. To determine whether flanking EST data can assist in microRNA (miRNA) prediction, we identified genomic sites encoding putative miRNAs by combining functional RNA predictions with flanking ESTs data in a model consistent with miRNAs undergoing cleavage during maturation. In both human and mouse genomes, we observed that the inclusion of flanking ESTs adjacent to and not overlapping predicted miRNAs significantly improved the performance of various methods of miRNA prediction, including direct high-throughput sequencing of small RNA libraries. We analyzed the expression of hundreds of miRNAs predicted to be expressed during myogenic differentiation using a customized microarray and identified several known and predicted myogenic miRNA hairpins. Our results indicate that integrating ESTs flanking structural RNA predictions improves the quality of cleaved miRNA predictions and suggest that this strategy can be used to predict other non-coding RNAs undergoing cleavage during maturation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".