MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114406729 · doi:10.1261/rna.2171205

A consensus CaMK IV-responsive RNA sequence mediates regulation of alternative exons in neurons

2005· article· en· W2114406729 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jiuyong Xie, Calvin Jan, Peter Stoilov, Jennifer Park, Douglas L. Black

Bibliographic record

VenueRNA · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiologyExonAlternative splicingCAMKRNA splicingExonic splicing enhancerCell biologyGeneticsSplicing factorCalmodulinSR proteinGeneRNAProtein kinase AKinaseBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons make extensive use of alternative pre-mRNA splicing to regulate gene expression and diversify physiological responses. We showed previously in a pituitary cell line that the Ca(++)/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase CaMK IV specifically repressed splicing of the BK channel STREX exon. This repression is dependent on a CaMK IV-responsive RNA element (CaRRE) within the STREX 3' splice site. Here, we report that similar Ca(++) regulation of splicing, mediated by L-type calcium channels and CaM kinase IV, occurs in cultured neurons and in the brain. We identify a critical CaRRE motif (CACATNRTTAT) that is essential for conferring CaMK IV repression on an otherwise constitutive exon. Additional Ca(++)-regulated exons that carry this consensus sequence are also identified in the human genome. Thus, the Ca(++)/CaMK IV pathway in neurons controls the alternative splicing of a group of exons through this short CaRRE consensus sequence. The functions of some of these exons imply that splicing control through the CaMK IV pathway will alter neuronal activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRNASame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207