MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RNA–Protein Interactions: An Overview

2013· review· en· W2638695 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRNAComputational biologyRNA-binding proteinComputer scienceNucleic acid structureBiologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RNA binding proteins (RBPs) are key players in the regulation of gene expression. In this chapter we discuss the main protein-RNA recognition modes used by RBPs in order to regulate multiple steps of RNA processing. We discuss traditional and state-of-the-art technologies that can be used to study RNAs bound by individual RBPs, or vice versa, for both in vitro and in vivo methodologies. To help highlight the biological significance of RBP mediated regulation, online resources on experimentally verified protein-RNA interactions are briefly presented. Finally, we present the major tools to computationally infer RNA binding sites according to the modeling features and to the unsupervised or supervised frameworks that are adopted. Since some RNA binding site search algorithms are derived from DNA binding site search algorithms, we discuss the commonalities and novelties introduced to handle both sequence and structural features uniquely characterizing protein-RNA interactions.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.397 · 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