Exploration and analysis of R-loop mapping data with <i>RLBase</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract R-loops are three-stranded nucleic acid structures formed from the hybridization of RNA and DNA during nascent transcription. In 2012, Ginno et al. introduced the first R-loop mapping method, DNA:RNA immunoprecipitation (DRIP) sequencing. Since that time, dozens of studies have implemented R-loop mapping and new high-resolution techniques have been developed. The resulting datasets have tremendous potential to reveal the causes and consequences of R-loops genome-wide. However, poor quality and variability between mapping approaches pose serious barriers to the meta-analysis of these data. In our recent work, we reprocessed 693 R-loop mapping samples, devising new quality methods, defining a set of high-confidence mapping samples, and then deriving R-loop regions, consensus sites of R-loop formation. This analysis yielded the largest R-loop data resource to date along with novel computational approaches for R-loop mapping analysis. Now, we introduce RLBase , an innovative web server which builds upon those data and software by providing users with the capability to (1) explore hundreds of public R-loop mapping datasets, (2) explore consensus R-loop regions, (3) analyze user-supplied datasets to generate an HTML quality report, and (4) download all the processed data for the 693 samples we previously reprocessed and standardized. In addition to RLBase , we also describe the other software which, along with RLBase , provides a computational framework for R-loop bioinformatics. RLBase , and the rest of these software (termed “RLSuite”), are provided freely under an MIT license and made publicly available: https://gccri.bishop-lab.uthscsa.edu/rlsuite/ . RLBase is directly accessible via the following URL: https://gccri.bishop-lab.uthscsa.edu/rlbase/ .
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
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".