MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765768951 · doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.157

Small non-coding RNA transcriptome of the NCI-60 cell line panel

2017· article· en· W2765768951 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin A. Marshall, Adam P. Sage, Kevin W. Ng, Victor D. Martínez, Natalie Firmino, Kevin L. Bennewith, Wan L. Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research CentreBC Cancer Agency
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsSmall nucleolar RNABiologymicroRNATranscriptomeComputational biologyGeneRNAGeneticsUntranslated regionNon-coding RNAGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Only 3% of the transcribed human genome is translated into protein, and small non-coding RNAs from these untranslated regions have demonstrated critical roles in transcriptional and translational regulation of proteins. Here, we provide a resource that will facilitate cell line selection for gene expression studies involving sncRNAs in cancer research. As the most accessible and tractable models of tumours, cancer cell lines are widely used to study cancer development and progression. The NCI-60 panel of 59 cancer cell lines was curated to provide common models for drug screening in 9 tissue types; however, its prominence has extended to use in gene regulation, xenograft models, and beyond. Here, we present the complete small non-coding RNA (sncRNA) transcriptomes of these 59 cancer cell lines. Additionally, we examine the abundance and unique sequences of annotated microRNAs (miRNAs), PIWI-interacting RNAs (piRNAs), small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs), and small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs), and reveal novel unannotated microRNA sequences.

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)0.000
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicMicroRNA in disease regulationFrench-language works237,207