MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280541080 · doi:10.3390/ncrna8030034

An Expanded Landscape of Unusually Short RNAs in 11 Samples from Six Eukaryotic Organisms

2022· article· en· W4280541080 on OpenAlexafffund
Marine Lambert, Sara Guellal, Jeffrey Ho, Abderrahim Benmoussa, Benoit Laffont, Richard R. Bélanger, Patrick Provost

Bibliographic record

VenueNon-Coding RNA · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small RNA sequencing (sRNA-Seq) approaches unveiled sequences derived from longer non-coding RNAs, such as transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomal RNA (rRNA) fragments, known as tRFs and rRFs, respectively. However, rRNAs and RNAs shorter than 16 nt are often depleted from library preparations/sequencing analyses, although they may be functional. Here, we sought to obtain a complete repertoire of small RNAs by sequencing the total RNA from 11 samples of 6 different eukaryotic organisms, from yeasts to human, in an extended 8- to 30-nt window of RNA length. The 8- to 15-nt window essentially contained fragments of longer non-coding RNAs, such as microRNAs, PIWI-associated RNAs (piRNAs), small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs), tRNAs and rRNAs. Notably, unusually short RNAs < 16 nt were more abundant than those >16 nt in bilaterian organisms. A new RT-qPCR method confirmed that two unusually short rRFs of 12 and 13 nt were more overly abundant (~3-log difference) than two microRNAs. We propose to not deplete rRNA and to reduce the lower threshold of RNA length to include unusually short RNAs in sRNA-Seq analyses and datasets, as their abundance and diversity support their potential role and importance as biomarkers of disease and/or mediators of cellular function.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNon-Coding RNASame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207