Known sequence features explain half of all human gene ends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cleavage and polyadenylation (CPA) sites define eukaryotic gene ends. CPA sites are associated with five key sequence recognition elements: the upstream UGUA, the polyadenylation signal (PAS), and U-rich sequences; the CA/UA dinucleotide where cleavage occurs; and GU-rich downstream elements (DSEs). Currently, it is not clear whether these sequences are sufficient to delineate CPA sites. Additionally, numerous other sequences and factors have been described, often in the context of promoting alternative CPA sites and preventing cryptic CPA site usage. Here, we dissect the contributions of individual sequence features to CPA using standard discriminative models. We show that models comprised only of the five primary CPA sequence features give highest probability scores to constitutive CPA sites at the ends of coding genes, relative to the entire pre-mRNA sequence, for 59% of all human genes. U1-hybridizing sequences provide a small boost in performance. The addition of all known RBP RNA binding motifs to the model increases this figure to only 61%, suggesting that additional factors beyond the core CPA machinery have a minimal role in delineating real from cryptic sites. To our knowledge, this high effectiveness of established features to predict human gene ends has not previously been documented.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".