On cross-conditional and fluctuation correlations in competitive RNA networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: In competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) networks, different mRNAs targeted by the same miRNA can 'cross-talk' by absorbing miRNAs and relieving repression on the other mRNAs. This creates correlations in mRNA expression even without direct interaction. Most previous theoretical study of cross-talk has focused on correlations in stochastic fluctuations of mRNAs around their steady state values. However, the experimentally known examples of cross-talk do not involve single-cell fluctuations, but rather bulk tissue-level changes between conditions, such as due to differentiation or disease. In our study, we quantify for the first time both fluctuational and cross-conditional cross-talk in chemical kinetic models of miRNA-mRNA interaction networks. We study the parameter regions under which these different types of cross-talk arise, and how they are affected by network structure. RESULTS: We find that while a network may support both fluctuational and cross-conditional cross-talk, the parameter regimes under which each type of cross-talk tends to emerge are rather different. Consistent with previous studies, fluctuational cross-talk occurs when miRNA and mRNA expression levels are 'balanced', whereas cross-conditional cross-talk tends to emerge when average miRNA levels are high and average mRNA levels are low. Conversely, cross-conditional miRNA cross-talk-a little-discussed phenomenon-is greatest when miRNA levels are low and mRNA levels are high. We show that the parameter ranges where cross-talk is maximized can, to some degree, be predicted based on network structure. Indeed, we find that the dominant effect of network structure on correlations happens through the effect of network structure on the overall balance between miRNA and mRNA expression. However, it is not the only effect, as we find that the density of connections between miRNAs and mRNAs in larger networks increases cross-talk without altering the expression balance. CONCLUSION: Our results deepen the theoretical understanding of cross-talk in ceRNA networks, and have implications for the experimental identification of ceRNA cross-talk phenomena. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Simulation software available upon request. CONTACT: tperkins@ohri.ca.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".