MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401905691 · doi:10.1101/gad.353718.126

The Competition between Splicing and 3′ Processing Shapes the Human Transcriptome

2024· preprint· en· W4401905691 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lindsey V. Soles, Shuangyu Li, Kristianna S.K. Sarkan, Yoseop Yoon, Marielle Cárdenas Valdez, Lusong Tian, Liang Liu, Yongsheng Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Development · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHewitt FoundationNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTranscriptomeCompetition (biology)RNA splicingComputational biologyAlternative splicingComputer scienceBiologyGeneticsGeneGene expressionMessenger RNAEcologyRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eukaryotic pre-mRNA processing steps, including splicing and 3' processing, are tightly coordinated, yet the underlying mechanisms remain incompletely understood. U1 snRNP has been proposed to inhibit 3' processing at intronic polyadenylation (IPA) sites through a splicing-independent mechanism termed telescripting. In contrast, we discovered that disrupting splicing by using six different methods-targeting various key components such as U1 snRNP, U2 snRNP, U2AF, and SF3b-activates 3' processing at thousands of IPA sites. Notably, splicing inhibition, especially of U1 snRNP, induced widespread premature transcription termination within gene bodies through both IPA-coupled and IPA-independent mechanisms. Inhibition of different splicing factors activated overlapping and distinct sets of IPA sites, reflecting their specific contributions to transcription and spliceosome function. Conversely, inhibition of 3' processing enhanced splicing globally. These findings support a model in which splicing and 3' processing are competing processes that intersect with transcription to shape the transcriptome landscape.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & DevelopmentSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207