Pseudogenes regulate parental gene expression <i>via</i> ce<scp>RNA</scp> network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) was first proposed by Salmena and colleagues. Evidence suggests that pseudogene RNAs can act as a 'sponge' through competitive binding of common miRNA, releasing or attenuating repression through sequestering miRNAs away from parental mRNA. In theory, ceRNAs refer to all transcripts such as mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, long non-coding RNA, pseudogene RNA and circular RNA, because all of them may become the targets of miRNA depending on spatiotemporal situation. As binding of miRNA to the target RNA is not 100% complementary, it is possible that one miRNA can bind to multiple target RNAs and vice versa. All RNAs crosstalk through competitively binding to miRNAvia miRNA response elements (MREs) contained within the RNA sequences, thus forming a complex regulatory network. The ratio of a subset of miRNAs to the corresponding number of MREs determines repression strength on a given mRNA translation or stability. An increase in pseudogene RNA level can sequester miRNA and release repression on the parental gene, leading to an increase in parental gene expression. A massive number of transcripts constitute a complicated network that regulates each other through this proposed mechanism, though some regulatory significance may be mild or even undetectable. It is possible that the regulation of gene and pseudogene expression occurring in this manor involves all RNAs bearing common MREs. In this review, we will primarily discuss how pseudogene transcripts regulate expression of parental genes via ceRNA network and biological significance of regulation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".