Reducing the structure bias of RNA-Seq reveals a large number of non-annotated non-coding RNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of RNA expression is the fastest growing area of genomic research. However, despite the dramatic increase in the number of sequenced transcriptomes, we still do not have accurate estimates of the number and expression levels of non-coding RNA genes. Non-coding transcripts are often overlooked due to incomplete genome annotation. In this study, we use annotation-independent detection of RNA reads generated using a reverse transcriptase with low structure bias to identify non-coding RNA. Transcripts between 20 and 500 nucleotides were filtered and crosschecked with non-coding RNA annotations revealing 111 non-annotated non-coding RNAs expressed in different cell lines and tissues. Inspecting the sequence and structural features of these transcripts indicated that 60% of these transcripts correspond to new snoRNA and tRNA-like genes. The identified genes exhibited features of their respective families in terms of structure, expression, conservation and response to depletion of interacting proteins. Together, our data reveal a new group of RNA that are difficult to detect using standard gene prediction and RNA sequencing techniques, suggesting that reliance on actual gene annotation and sequencing techniques distorts the perceived architecture of the human transcriptome.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".