MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913184540 · doi:10.3390/ncrna5010016

Small Non-Coding RNAs Derived from Eukaryotic Ribosomal RNA

2019· review· en· W2913184540 on OpenAlexafffund
Marine Lambert, Abderrahim Benmoussa, Patrick Provost

Bibliographic record

VenueNon-Coding RNA · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNon-coding RNAComputational biologyRNASmall nucleolar RNARibosomal RNALong non-coding RNABiologyCell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of RNA-sequencing (RNA-Seq) technologies has markedly improved our knowledge and expanded the compendium of small non-coding RNAs, most of which derive from the processing of longer RNA precursors. In this review article, we will present a nonexhaustive list of referenced small non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) derived from eukaryotic ribosomal RNA (rRNA), called rRNA fragments (rRFs). We will focus on the rRFs that are experimentally verified, and discuss their origin, length, structure, biogenesis, association with known regulatory proteins, and potential role(s) as regulator of gene expression. This relatively new class of ncRNAs remained poorly investigated and underappreciated until recently, due mainly to the a priori exclusion of rRNA sequences-because of their overabundance-from RNA-Seq datasets. The situation surrounding rRFs resembles that of microRNAs (miRNAs), which used to be readily discarded from further analyses, for more than five decades, because no one could believe that RNA of such a short length could bear biological significance. As if we had not yet learned our lesson not to restrain our investigative, scientific mind from challenging widely accepted beliefs or dogmas, and from looking for the hidden treasures in the most unexpected places.

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 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 score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations133
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNon-Coding RNASame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207