Long-read RNA sequencing can probe organelle genome pervasive transcription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
40 years ago, organelle genomes were assumed to be streamlined and, perhaps, unexciting remnants of their prokaryotic past. However, the field of organelle genomics has exposed an unparallel diversity in genome architecture (i.e. genome size, structure, and content). The transcription of these eccentric genomes can be just as elaborate - organelle genomes are pervasively transcribed into a plethora of RNA types. However, while organelle protein-coding genes are known to produce polycistronic transcripts that undergo heavy posttranscriptional processing, the nature of organelle noncoding transcriptomes is still poorly resolved. Here, we review how wet-lab experiments and second-generation sequencing data (i.e. short reads) have been useful to determine certain types of organelle RNAs, particularly noncoding RNAs. We then explain how third-generation (long-read) RNA-Seq data represent the new frontier in organelle transcriptomics. We show that public repositories (e.g. NCBI SRA) already contain enough data for inter-phyla comparative studies and argue that organelle biologists can benefit from such data. We discuss the prospects of using publicly available sequencing data for organelle-focused studies and examine the challenges of such an approach. We highlight that the lack of a comprehensive database dedicated to organelle genomics/transcriptomics is a major impediment to the development of a field with implications in basic and applied science.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".