Identification of 11 candidate structured noncoding RNA motifs in humans by comparative genomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Only 1.5% of the human genome encodes proteins, while large part of the remaining encodes noncoding RNAs (ncRNA). Many ncRNAs form structures and perform many important functions. Accurately identifying structured ncRNAs in the human genome and discovering their biological functions remain a major challenge. Results Here, we have established a pipeline (CM-line) with the following features for analyzing the large genomes of humans and other animals. First, we selected species with larger genetic distances to facilitate the discovery of covariations and compatible mutations. Second, we used CMfinder, which can generate useful alignments even with low sequence conservation. Third, we removed repetitive sequences and known structured ncRNAs to reduce the workload of CMfinder. Fourth, we used Infernal to find more representatives and refine the structure. We reported 11 classes of structured ncRNA candidates with significant covariations in humans. Functional analysis showed that these ncRNAs may have variable functions. Some may regulate circadian clock genes through poly (A) signals (PAS); some may regulate the elongation factor (EEF1A) and the T-cell receptor signaling pathway by cooperating with RNA binding proteins. Conclusions By searching for important features of RNA structure from large genomes, the CM-line has revealed the existence of a variety of novel structured ncRNAs. Functional analysis suggests that some newly discovered ncRNA motifs may have biological functions. The pipeline we have established for the discovery of structured ncRNAs and the identification of their functions can also be applied to analyze other large genomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".