Regulatory element identification in subsets of transcripts: Comparison and integration of current computational methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulatory elements in mRNA play an often pivotal role in post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression. However, a systematic approach to efficiently identify putative regulatory elements from sets of post-transcriptionally coregulated genes is lacking, hampering studies of coregulation mechanisms. Although there are several analytical methods that can be used to detect conserved mRNA regulatory elements in a set of transcripts, there has been no systematic study of how well any of these methods perform individually or as a group. We therefore compared how well three algorithms, each based on a different principle (enumeration, optimization, or structure/sequence profiles), can identify elements in unaligned untranslated sequence regions. Two algorithms were originally designed to detect transcription factor binding sites, Weeder and BioProspector; and one was designed to detect RNA elements conserved in structure, RNAProfile. Three types of elements were examined: (1) elements conserved in both primary sequence and secondary structure; (2) elements conserved only in primary sequence; and (3) microRNA targets. Our results indicate that all methods can uniquely identify certain known RNA elements, and therefore, integrating the output from all algorithms leads to the most complete identification of elements. We therefore developed an approach to integrate results and guide selection of candidate elements from several algorithms presented as a web service (https://dbw.msi.umn.edu:8443/recit). These findings together with the approach for integration can be used to identify candidate elements from genome-wide post-transcriptional profiling data sets.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".