MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149744450 · doi:10.1261/rna.1923210

Natural and artificial RNAs occupy the same restricted region of sequence space

2009· article· en· W2149744450 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan Kennedy, Manuel E. Lladser, Zhiyuan Wu, Chen Zhang, Michael Yarus, Hans De Sterck, Rob Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueRNA · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsBiologyRibozymeComputational biologyRNASequence (biology)Complementarity (molecular biology)GeneticsFunction (biology)AptamerNon-coding RNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different chemical and mutational processes within genomes give rise to sequences with different compositions and perhaps different capacities for evolution. The evolution of functional RNAs may occur on a "neutral network" in which sequences with any given function can easily mutate to sequences with any other. This neutral network hypothesis is more likely if there is a particular region of composition that contains sequences that are functional in general, and if many different functions are possible within this preferred region of composition. We show that sequence preferences in active sites recovered by in vitro selection combine with biophysical folding rules to support the neutral network hypothesis. These simple active-site specifications and folding preferences obtained by artificial selection experiments recapture the previously observed purine bias and specific spread along the GC axis of naturally occurring aptamers and ribozymes isolated from organisms, although other types of RNAs, such as miRNA precursors and spliceosomal RNAs, that act primarily through complementarity to other amino acids do not share these preferences. These universal evolved sequence features are therefore intrinsic in RNA molecules that bind small-molecule targets or catalyze reactions.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRNASame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207