MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214739272 · doi:10.3410/f.2000983.1568087

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Regulation of alternative splicing by histone modifications.

2010· dataset· en· W4214739272 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Andrea Mattevi

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2010
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingGenome CanadaOntario GenomicsCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthOntario Genomics Institute
KeywordsRNA splicingAlternative splicingHistoneChromatinGeneticsBiologyPolitical scienceGeneMessenger RNARNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternative splicing of pre-mRNA is a prominent mechanism to generate protein diversity, yet its regulation is poorly understood. We demonstrated a direct role for histone modifications in alternative splicing. We found distinctive histone modification signatures that correlate with the splicing outcome in a set of human genes, and modulation of histone modifications causes splice site switching. Histone marks affect splicing outcome by influencing the recruitment of splicing regulators via a chromatin-binding protein. These results outline an adaptor system for the reading of histone marks by the pre-mRNA splicing machinery. PMID: 20133523 Funding information This work was supported by: NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: R01 AG032134-02 Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Grant ID: MOP-67011 NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: R01 AG032134 NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: R01 AG032134-01 Intramural NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: ZIA BC010309-11 NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: R01 AG032134-04 NIA NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: R01 AG032134-03 More Less keyboard_arrow_down

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1200.103

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207