RNA editing of protein sequences: A rare event in human transcriptomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RNA editing, the post-transcriptional recoding of RNA molecules, has broad potential implications for gene expression. Several recent studies of human transcriptomes reported a high number of differences between DNA and RNA, including events not explained by any known mammalian RNA-editing mechanism. However, RNA-editing estimates differ by orders of magnitude, since technical limitations of high-throughput sequencing have been sometimes overlooked and sequencing errors have been confounded with editing sites. Here, we developed a series of computational approaches to analyze the extent of this process in the human transcriptome, identifying and addressing the major sources of error of a large-scale approach. We apply the detection pipeline to deep sequencing data from lymphoblastoid cell lines expressing ADAR1 at high levels, and show that noncanonical editing is unlikely to occur, with at least 85%-98% of candidate sites being the result of sequencing and mapping artifacts. By implementing a method to detect intronless gene duplications, we show that most noncanonical sites previously validated originate in read mismapping within these regions. Canonical A-to-G editing, on the other hand, is widespread in noncoding Alu sequences and rare in exonic and coding regions, where the validation rate also dropped. The genomic distribution of editing sites we find, together with the lack of consistency across studies or biological replicates, suggest a minor quantitative impact of this process in the overall recoding of protein sequences. We propose instead a primary role of ADAR1 protein as a defense system against elements potentially damaging to the genome.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".