Intronic small nucleolar RNAs regulate host gene splicing through base pairing with their adjacent intronic sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) are abundant noncoding RNAs best known for their involvement in ribosomal RNA maturation. In mammals, most expressed snoRNAs are embedded in introns of longer genes and produced through transcription and splicing of their host. Intronic snoRNAs were long viewed as inert passengers with little effect on host expression. However, a recent study reported a snoRNA influencing the splicing and ultimate output of its host gene. Overall, the general contribution of intronic snoRNAs to host expression remains unclear. RESULTS: Computational analysis of large-scale human RNA-RNA interaction datasets indicates that 30% of detected snoRNAs interact with their host transcripts. Many snoRNA-host duplexes are located near alternatively spliced exons and display high sequence conservation suggesting a possible role in splicing regulation. The study of the model SNORD2-EIF4A2 duplex indicates that the snoRNA interaction with the host intronic sequence conceals the branch point leading to decreased inclusion of the adjacent alternative exon. Extended SNORD2 sequence containing the interacting intronic region accumulates in sequencing datasets in a cell-type-specific manner. Antisense oligonucleotides and mutations that disrupt the formation of the snoRNA-intron structure promote the splicing of the alternative exon, shifting the EIF4A2 transcript ratio away from nonsense-mediated decay. CONCLUSIONS: Many snoRNAs form RNA duplexes near alternative exons of their host transcripts, placing them in optimal positions to control host output as shown for the SNORD2-EIF4A2 model system. Overall, our study supports a more widespread role for intronic snoRNAs in the regulation of their host transcript maturation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".