MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2912698241 · doi:10.1101/527440

Splicing buffers suboptimal codon usage in human cells

2019· preprint· en· W2912698241 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christine Mordstein, Rosina Savisaar, Robert S. Young, Jeanne Bazile, Lana Talmane, Juliet Luft, Michael A. Liss, Martin S. Taylor, Laurence D. Hurst, Grzegorz Kudla

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilInstitute of GeneticsWellcome Trust
KeywordsRNA splicingExonGeneIntronBiologyExonic splicing enhancerGeneticsAlternative splicingHuman genomeCodon usage biasGC-contentGene expressionGenomeRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although multiple studies have addressed the effects of codon usage on gene expression, such studies were typically performed in unspliced model genes. In the human genome, most genes undergo splicing and patterns of codon usage are splicing-dependent: guanine and cytosine (GC) content is highest within single-exon genes and within first exons of multi-exon genes. Intrigued by this observation, we measured the effects of splicing on expression in a panel of synonymous variants of GFP and mKate2 reporter genes that varied in nucleotide composition. We found that splicing promotes the expression of adenine and thymine (AT)-rich variants by increasing their steady-state protein and mRNA levels, in part through promoting cytoplasmic localization of mRNA. Splicing had little or no effect on the expression of GC-rich variants. In the absence of splicing, high GC content at the 5' end, but not at the 3' end of the coding sequence positively correlated with expression. Among endogenous human protein-coding transcripts, GC content has a more positive effect on various expression measures of unspliced, relative to spliced mRNAs. We propose that splicing promotes the expression of AT-rich genes, leading to selective pressure for the retention of introns in the human genome.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms→French-language works237,207→