MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890873643 · doi:10.1101/423533

miRNA analysis with <i>Prost!</i> reveals evolutionary conservation of organ-enriched expression and post-transcriptional modifications in three-spined stickleback and zebrafish

2018· preprint· en· W2890873643 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Desvignes, Peter Batzel, Jason Sydes, B. Frank Eames, John H. Postlethwait

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of OregonNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSticklebackZebrafishBiologyDanioThree-spined sticklebackGasterosteusGenemicroRNAConserved sequenceGeneticsEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryBase sequence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract MicroRNAs (miRNAs) can have tissue-specific expression and functions; they can originate from dedicated miRNA genes, from non-canonical miRNA genes, or from mirror-miRNA genes and can also experience post-transcriptional variations. It remains unclear, however, which mechanisms of miRNA production or modification are tissue-specific and the extent of their evolutionary conservation. To address these issues, we developed the software Prost! (PRocessing Of Short Transcripts), which, among other features, allows accurate quantification of mature miRNAs, takes into account post-transcriptional processing, such as nucleotide editing, and helps identify mirror-miRNAs. Here, we applied Prost! to annotate and analyze miRNAs in three-spined stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ), a model fish for evolutionary biology reported to have a miRNome larger than most teleost fish. Zebrafish ( Danio rerio ), a distantly related teleost with a well-known miRNome, served as comparator. Despite reports suggesting that stickleback had a large miRNome, results showed that stickleback has 277 evolutionary-conserved mir genes and 366 unique mature miRNAs (excluding mir430 gene replicates and the vaultRNA-derived mir733 ), similar to zebrafish. In addition, small RNA sequencing data from brain, heart, testis, and ovary in both stickleback and zebrafish identified suites of mature miRNAs that display organ-specific enrichment, which is, for many miRNAs, evolutionarily-conserved. These data also supported the hypothesis that evolutionarily-conserved, organ-specific mechanisms regulate miRNA post-transcriptional variations. In both stickleback and zebrafish, miR2188-5p was edited frequently with similar nucleotide editing patterns in the seed sequence in various tissues, and the editing rate was organ-specific with higher editing in the brain. In summary, Prost! is a critical new tool to identify and understand small RNAs and can help clarify a species’ miRNA biology, as shown here for an important fish model for the evolution of developmental mechanisms, and can provide insight into organ-specific expression and evolutionary-conserved miRNA post-transcriptional mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMicroRNA in disease regulationFrench-language works237,207