Genome-wide identification and characterization of tissue-specific RNA editing events in<i>D. melanogaster</i>and their potential role in regulating alternative splicing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RNA editing is a widespread mechanism that plays a crucial role in diversifying gene products. Its abundance and importance in regulating cellular processes were revealed using new sequencing technologies. The majority of these editing events, however, cannot be associated with regulatory mechanisms. We use tissue-specific high-throughput libraries of D. melanogaster to study RNA editing. We introduce an analysis pipeline that utilises large input data and explicitly captures ADAR's requirement for double-stranded regions. It combines probabilistic and deterministic filters and can identify RNA editing events with a low estimated false positive rate. Analyzing ten different tissue types, we predict 2879 editing sites and provide their detailed characterization. Our analysis pipeline accurately distinguishes genuine editing sites from SNPs and sequencing and mapping artifacts. Our editing sites are 3 times more likely to occur in exons with multiple splicing acceptor/donor sites than in exons with unique splice sites (p-value < 2.10(-15)). Furthermore, we identify 244 edited regions where RNA editing and alternative splicing are likely to influence each other. For 96 out of these 244 regions, we find evolutionary evidence for conserved RNA secondary-structures near splice sites suggesting a potential regulatory mechanism where RNA editing may alter splicing patterns via changes in local RNA structure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".