Identification of the conserved long non-coding RNAs in myogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our understanding of genome regulation is ever-evolving with the continuous discovery of new modes of gene regulation, and transcriptomic studies of mammalian genomes have revealed the presence of a considerable population of non-coding RNA molecules among the transcripts expressed. One such non-coding RNA molecule is long non-coding RNA (lncRNA). However, the function of lncRNAs in gene regulation is not well understood; moreover, finding conserved lncRNA across species is a challenging task. Therefore, we propose a novel approach to identify conserved lncRNAs and functionally annotate these molecules. RESULTS: In this study, we exploited existing myogenic transcriptome data and identified conserved lncRNAs in mice and humans. We identified the lncRNAs expressing differentially between the early and later stages of muscle development. Differential expression of these lncRNAs was confirmed experimentally in cultured mouse muscle C2C12 cells. We utilized the three-dimensional architecture of the genome and identified topologically associated domains for these lncRNAs. Additionally, we correlated the expression of genes in domains for functional annotation of these trans-lncRNAs in myogenesis. Using this approach, we identified conserved lncRNAs in myogenesis and functionally annotated them. CONCLUSIONS: With this novel approach, we identified the conserved lncRNAs in myogenesis in humans and mice and functionally annotated them. The method identified a large number of lncRNAs are involved in myogenesis. Further studies are required to investigate the reason for the conservation of the lncRNAs in human and mouse while their sequences are dissimilar. Our approach can be used to identify novel lncRNAs conserved in different species and functionally annotated them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".