Inference of the human polyadenylation code
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivation: Processing of transcripts at the 3'-end involves cleavage at a polyadenylation site followed by the addition of a poly(A)-tail. By selecting which site is cleaved, the process of alternative polyadenylation enables genes to produce transcript isoforms with different 3'-ends. To facilitate the identification and treatment of disease-causing mutations that affect polyadenylation and to understand the sequence determinants underlying this regulatory process, a computational model that can accurately predict polyadenylation patterns from genomic features is desirable. Results: Previous works have focused on identifying candidate polyadenylation sites and classifying tissue-specific sites. By training on how multiple sites in genes are competitively selected for polyadenylation from 3'-end sequencing data, we developed a deep learning model that can predict the tissue-specific strength of a polyadenylation site in the 3' untranslated region of the human genome given only its genomic sequence. We demonstrate the model's broad utility on multiple tasks, without any application-specific training. The model can be used to predict which polyadenylation site is more likely to be selected in genes with multiple sites. It can be used to scan the 3' untranslated region to find candidate polyadenylation sites. It can be used to classify the pathogenicity of variants near annotated polyadenylation sites in ClinVar. It can also be used to anticipate the effect of antisense oligonucleotide experiments to redirect polyadenylation. We provide analysis on how different features affect the model's predictive performance and a method to identify sensitive regions of the genome at the single-based resolution that can affect polyadenylation regulation. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".