MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952014119 · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08126-5

C1 CAGE detects transcription start sites and enhancer activity at single-cell resolution

2019· article· en· W2952014119 on OpenAlexaff
Tsukasa Kouno, Jonathan Moody, Andrew Tae-Jun Kwon, Youtaro Shibayama, Sachi Kato, Yi Huang, Michael E. Böttcher, Efthymios Motakis, Mickaël Mendez, Jessica Severin, Joachim Luginbühl, Imad Abugessaisa, Akira Hasegawa, Satoshi Takizawa, Takahiro Arakawa, Masaaki Furuno, Naveen Ramalingam, Jay West, Harukazu Suzuki, Takeya Kasukawa, Timo Lassmann, Chung-Chau Hon, Erik Arner, Piero Carninci, Charles Plessy, Jay W. Shin

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersRIKENMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
KeywordsEnhancerCageTranscription (linguistics)Transcription factorEnhancer RNAsComputational biologyBiologyCell biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Single-cell transcriptomic profiling is a powerful tool to explore cellular heterogeneity. However, most of these methods focus on the 3′-end of polyadenylated transcripts and provide only a partial view of the transcriptome. We introduce C1 CAGE, a method for the detection of transcript 5′-ends with an original sample multiplexing strategy in the C1 TM microfluidic system. We first quantifiy the performance of C1 CAGE and find it as accurate and sensitive as other methods in the C1 system. We then use it to profile promoter and enhancer activities in the cellular response to TGF-β of lung cancer cells and discover subpopulations of cells differing in their response. We also describe enhancer RNA dynamics revealing transcriptional bursts in subsets of cells with transcripts arising from either strand in a mutually exclusive manner, validated using single molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization.

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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations102
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicImmunotherapy and Immune ResponsesFrench-language works237,207