Comprehensive transcriptomic analysis of long non-coding RNAs in bovine ovarian follicles and early embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been the subject of numerous studies over the past decade. First thought to come from aberrant transcriptional events, lncRNAs are now considered a crucial component of the genome with roles in multiple cellular functions. However, the functional annotation and characterization of bovine lncRNAs during early development remain limited. In this comprehensive analysis, we review lncRNAs expression in bovine ovarian follicles and early embryos, based on a unique database comprising 468 microarray hybridizations from a single platform designed to target 7,724 lncRNA transcripts, of which 5,272 are intergenic (lincRNA), 958 are intronic, and 1,524 are antisense (lncNAT). Compared to translated mRNA, lncRNAs have been shown to be more tissue-specific and expressed in low copy numbers. This analysis revealed that protein-coding genes and lncRNAs are both expressed more in oocytes. Differences between the oocyte and the 2-cell embryo are also more apparent in terms of lncRNAs than mRNAs. Co-expression network analysis using WGCNA generated 25 modules with differing proportions of lncRNAs. The modules exhibiting a higher proportion of lncRNAs were found to be associated with fewer annotated mRNAs and housekeeping functions. Functional annotation of co-expressed mRNAs allowed attribution of lncRNAs to a wide array of key cellular events such as meiosis, translation initiation, immune response, and mitochondrial related functions. We thus provide evidence that lncRNAs play diverse physiological roles that are tissue-specific and associated with key cellular functions alongside mRNAs in bovine ovarian follicles and early embryos. This contributes to add lncRNAs as active molecules in the complex regulatory networks driving folliculogenesis, oogenesis and early embryogenesis all of which are necessary for reproductive success.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".