Motif conservation, stability, and host gene expression are the main drivers of snoRNA expression across vertebrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) are structured noncoding RNAs present in multiple copies within eukaryotic genomes. snoRNAs guide chemical modifications on their target RNA and regulate processes like ribosome assembly and splicing. Most human snoRNAs are embedded within host gene introns, the remainder being independently expressed from intergenic regions. We recently characterized the abundance of snoRNAs and their host gene across several healthy human tissues and found that the level of most snoRNAs does not correlate with that of their host gene, with the observation that snoRNAs embedded within the same host gene often differ drastically in abundance. To better understand the determinants of snoRNA expression, we trained machine learning models to predict whether snoRNAs are expressed or not in human tissues based on more than 30 collected features related to snoRNAs and their genomic context. By interpreting the models' predictions, we find that snoRNAs rely on conserved motifs, a stable global structure and terminal stem, and a transcribed locus to be expressed. We observe that these features explain well the varying abundance of snoRNAs embedded within the same host gene. By predicting the expression status of snoRNAs across several vertebrates, we notice that only one-third of all annotated snoRNAs are expressed per genome, as in humans. Our results suggest that ancestral snoRNAs disseminated within vertebrate genomes, sometimes leading to the development of new functions and a probable gain in fitness and thereby conserving features favorable to the expression of these few snoRNAs, the large remainder often degenerating into pseudogenes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".