Accounting for biases in riboprofiling data indicates a major role for proline in stalling translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent advent of ribosome profiling-sequencing of short ribosome-bound fragments of mRNA-has offered an unprecedented opportunity to interrogate the sequence features responsible for modulating translational rates. Nevertheless, numerous analyses of the first riboprofiling data set have produced equivocal and often incompatible results. Here we analyze three independent yeast riboprofiling data sets, including two with much higher coverage than previously available, and find that all three show substantial technical sequence biases that confound interpretations of ribosomal occupancy. After accounting for these biases, we find no effect of previously implicated factors on ribosomal pausing. Rather, we find that incorporation of proline, whose unique side-chain stalls peptide synthesis in vitro, also slows the ribosome in vivo. We also reanalyze a method that implicated positively charged amino acids as the major determinant of ribosomal stalling and demonstrate that it produces false signals of stalling in low-coverage data. Our results suggest that any analysis of riboprofiling data should account for sequencing biases and sparse coverage. To this end, we establish a robust methodology that enables analysis of ribosome profiling data without prior assumptions regarding which positions spanned by the ribosome cause stalling.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".