High-affinity hnRNP A1 binding sites and duplex-forming inverted repeats have similar effects on 5??? splice site selection in support of a common looping out and repression mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-affinity binding sites for the hnRNP A1 protein stimulate the use of a distal 5' splice site in mammalian pre-mRNAs. Notably, strong A1-mediated shifts in splice site selection are not accompanied by equivalent changes in the assembly of U1 snRNP-containing complexes on competing 5' splice sites. To explain the above results, we have proposed that an interaction between hnRNP A1 molecules bound to high-affinity sites loops out the internal 5' splice site. Here, we present additional evidence in support of the looping out model. First, replacing A1 binding sites with sequences that can generate a loop through RNA duplex formation activates distal 5' splice site usage in an equivalent manner. Second, increasing the distance between the internal 5' splice site and flanking A1 binding sites does not compromise activation of the distal 5' splice site. Similar results were obtained with pre-mRNAs carrying inverted repeats. Using a pre-mRNA containing only one 5' splice site, we show that splicing is repressed when flanked by two high-affinity A1 binding sites or by inverted repeats, and that inactivation of the internal 5' splice site is sufficient to elicit a strong increase in the use of the distal donor site. Our results are consistent with the view that the binding of A1 to high-affinity sites promotes loop formation, an event that would repress the internal 5' splice site and lead to distal 5' splice site activation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".