MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161010175 · doi:10.1101/gr.10.7.1011

Distribution of Hammerhead and Hammerhead-like RNA Motifs Through the GenBank

2000· article· en· W2161010175 on OpenAlexafffund
Gerardo Ferbeyre, Véronique Bourdeau, M. Pageau, Pedro Miramóntes, Robert Cedergren

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsBiologyHammerhead ribozymeRNAVirologyGenBankGeneticsVirusRibozymeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hammerhead ribozymes previously were found in satellite RNAs from plant viroids and in repetitive DNA from certain species of newts and schistosomes. To determine if this catalytic RNA motif has a wider distribution, we decided to scrutinize the GenBank database for RNAs that contain hammerhead or hammerhead-like motifs. The search shows a widespread distribution of this kind of RNA motif in different sequences suggesting that they might have a more general role in RNA biology. The frequency of the hammerhead motif is half of that expected from a random distribution, but this fact comes from the low CpG representation in vertebrate sequences and the bias of the GenBank for those sequences. Intriguing motifs include those found in several families of repetitive sequences, in the satellite RNA from the carrot red leaf luteovirus, in plant viruses like the spinach latent virus and the elm mottle virus, in animal viruses like the hepatitis E virus and the caprine encephalitis virus, and in mRNAs such as those coding for cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase in the rat and the hamster.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations36
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsFrench-language works237,207