MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510312826 · doi:10.1038/srep32141

Direct visualization of both DNA and RNA quadruplexes in human cells via an uncommon spectroscopic method

2016· article· en· W2510312826 on OpenAlexaff
Aurélien Laguerre, Judy M.Y. Wong, David Monchaud

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Nucleic Acid Chemistry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversité de BourgogneConseil régional de Bourgogne-Franche-ComtéUniversity of Cambridge
KeywordsRNADNAComputational biologyG-quadruplexHuman genomeBiologyGeneGenomeCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guanine-rich DNA or RNA sequences can fold into higher-order, four-stranded structures termed quadruplexes that are suspected to play pivotal roles in cellular mechanisms including the control of the genome integrity and gene expression. However, the biological relevance of quadruplexes is still a matter of debate owing to the paucity of unbiased evidences of their existence in cells. Recent reports on quadruplex-specific antibodies and small-molecule fluorescent probes help dispel reservations and accumulating evidences now pointing towards the cellular relevance of quadruplexes. To better assess and comprehend their biology, developing new versatile tools to detect both DNA and RNA quadruplexes in cells is essential. We report here a smart fluorescent probe that allows for the simple detection of quadruplexes thanks to an uncommon spectroscopic mechanism known as the red-edge effect (REE). We demonstrate that this effect could open avenues to greatly enhance the ability to visualize both DNA and RNA quadruplexes in human cells, using simple protocols and fluorescence detection facilities.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.287
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 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

Citations78
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicDNA and Nucleic Acid ChemistryFrench-language works237,207