P-TarPmiR accurately predicts plant-specific miRNA targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
microRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding ribonucleic acids that post-transcriptionally regulate gene expression through the targeting of messenger RNA (mRNAs). Most miRNA target predictors have focused on animal species and prediction performance drops substantially when applied to plant species. Several rule-based miRNA target predictors have been developed in plant species, but they often fail to discover new miRNA targets with non-canonical miRNA-mRNA binding. Here, the recently published TarDB database of plant miRNA-mRNA data is leveraged to retrain the TarPmiR miRNA target predictor for application on plant species. Rigorous experiment design across four plant test species demonstrates that animal-trained predictors fail to sustain performance on plant species, and that the use of plant-specific training data improves accuracy depending on the quantity of plant training data used. Surprisingly, our results indicate that the complete exclusion of animal training data leads to the most accurate plant-specific miRNA target predictor indicating that animal-based data may detract from miRNA target prediction in plants. Our final plant-specific miRNA prediction method, dubbed P-TarPmiR, is freely available for use at http://ptarpmir.cu-bic.ca . The final P-TarPmiR method is used to predict targets for all miRNA within the soybean genome. Those ranked predictions, together with GO term enrichment, are shared with the research community.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".