MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160119714 · doi:10.3390/biology2030976

The Role of Nuclear Bodies in Gene Expression and Disease

2013· article· en· W2160119714 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie Morimoto, Cornelius F. Boerkoel

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsBiologyCajal bodyTranscription factoriesNucleolusRibosome biogenesisGene expressionCell biologyStress granuleHistoneCell nucleusGeneticsSpliceosomeGeneRNARNA splicingRibosomeTranscriptional regulationMessenger RNANucleusTranslation (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review summarizes the current understanding of the role of nuclear bodies in regulating gene expression. The compartmentalization of cellular processes, such as ribosome biogenesis, RNA processing, cellular response to stress, transcription, modification and assembly of spliceosomal snRNPs, histone gene synthesis and nuclear RNA retention, has significant implications for gene regulation. These functional nuclear domains include the nucleolus, nuclear speckle, nuclear stress body, transcription factory, Cajal body, Gemini of Cajal body, histone locus body and paraspeckle. We herein review the roles of nuclear bodies in regulating gene expression and their relation to human health and disease.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations94
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiologySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207