MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128628194 · doi:10.1002/wrna.1106

Unscrambling genetic information at the RNA level

2012· review· en· W2128628194 on OpenAlexafffund
Sandrine Moreira, Sophie Breton, Gertraud Burger

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews - RNA · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIntronRNA splicingRNARNA editingBiologyGeneticsComputational biologyGroup II intronGeneDNAGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomics aims at unraveling the blueprint of life; however, DNA sequence alone does not always reveal the proteins and structural RNAs encoded by the genome. The reason is that genetic information is often encrypted. Recognizing the logic of encryption, and understanding how living cells decode hidden information--at the level of DNA, RNA or protein--is challenging. RNA-level decryption includes topical RNA editing and more 'macroscopic' transcript rearrangements. The latter events involve the four types of introns recognized to date, notably spliceosomal, group I, group II, and archaeal/tRNA splicing. Intricate variants, such as alternative splicing and trans-splicing, have been reported for each intron type, but the biological significance has not always been confirmed. Novel RNA-level unscrambling processes were recently discovered in mitochondria of dinoflagellates and diplonemids, and potentially euglenids. These processes seem not to rely on known introns, and the corresponding molecular mechanisms remain to be elucidated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews - RNASame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207