Polyadenylated RNA sequencing analysis helps establish a reliable catalog of circular RNAs – a bovine example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to compare the circular transcriptome of divergent tissues in order to understand: i) the presence of circular RNAs (circRNAs) that are not exonic circRNAs, i.e. originated from backsplicing involving known exons and, ii) the origin of artificial circRNA (artif_circRNA), i.e. circRNA not generated in-vivo . CircRNA identification is mostly an in-silico process, and the analysis of data from the BovReg project ( https://www.bovreg.eu/ ) provided an opportunity to explore new ways to identify reliable circRNAs. By considering 117 tissue samples, we characterized 23,926 exonic circRNAs, 337 circRNAs from 273 introns (191 ciRNAs, 146 intron circles), 108 circRNAs from small non-coding genes and nearly 36.6K circRNAs classified as other_circRNAs. We suggested in-vivo copying of specific exonic circRNAs by an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) to explain the 20 identified circRNAs with reverse-complement exons. Furthermore, for 63 of those samples we analyzed in parallel data from total-RNAseq (ribosomal RNAs depleted prior to library preparation) with paired mRNAseq (library prepared with poly(A)-selected RNAs). The high number of circRNAs detected in mRNAseq, and the significant number of novel circRNAs, mainly other_circRNAs, led us to consider all circRNAs detected in mRNAseq as artificial. This study provided evidence that there were 189 false entries in the list of exonic circRNAs: 103 artif_circRNAs identified through comparison of total-RNAseq/mRNAseq using two circRNA tools, 26 probable artif_circRNAs, and 65 identified through deep annotation analysis. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a panel of highly expressed exonic circRNAs (5-8%) in analyzing the diversity of the bovine circular transcriptome.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".