The Bacillaceae-1 RNA motif comprises two distinct classes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-coding RNAs are key regulatory players in bacteria. Many computationally predicted non-coding RNAs, however, lack functional associations. An example is the Bacillaceae-1 RNA motif, whose Rfam model consists of two hairpin loops. We find the motif conserved in nine of 13 non-pathogenic strains of the genus Bacillus but only in one pathogenic strain. To elucidate functional characteristics, we studied 118 hits of the Rfam model in 11 Bacillus spp. and found two distinct classes based on the ensemble diversity of their RNA secondary structure and the genomic context concerning the ribosomal RNA (rRNA) cluster. Forty hits are associated with the rRNA cluster, of which all 19 hits upstream flanking of 16S rRNA have a reverse complementary structure of low structural diversity. Fifty-two hits have large ensemble diversity, of which 38 are located between two coding genes. For eight hits in Bacillus subtilis, we investigated public expression data under various conditions and observed either the forward or the reverse complementary motif expressed. Five hits are associated with the rRNA cluster. Four of them are located upstream of the 16S rRNA and are not transcriptionally active, but instead, their reverse complements with low structural diversity are expressed together with the rRNA cluster. The three other hits are located between two coding genes in non-conserved genomic loci. Two of them are independently expressed from their surrounding genes and are structurally diverse. In summary, we found that Bacillaceae-1 RNA motifs upstream flanking of ribosomal RNA clusters tend to have one stable structure with the reverse complementary motif expressed in B. subtilis. In contrast, a subgroup of intergenic motifs has the thermodynamic potential for structural switches.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".