Biomolecular condensates control and are defined by RNA-RNA interactions that arise in viral replication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cells must limit RNA-RNA interactions to avoid irreversible RNA entanglement. Cells may prevent deleterious RNA-RNA interactions by genome organization to avoid complementarity however, RNA viruses generate long, perfectly complementary antisense RNA during replication. How do viral RNAs avoid irreversible entanglement? One possibility is RNA sequestration into biomolecular condensates. To test this, we reconstituted critical SARS-CoV-2 RNA-RNA interactions in Nucleocapsid condensates. We observed that RNAs with low propensity RNA-RNA interactions resulted in more round, liquid-like condensates while those with high sequence complementarity resulted in more heterogeneous networked morphology independent of RNA structure stability. Residue-resolution molecular simulations and direct sequencing-based detection of RNA-RNA interactions support that these properties arise from degree of trans RNA contacts. We propose that extensive RNA-RNA interactions in cell and viral replication are controlled via a combination of genome organization, timing, RNA sequence content, RNA production ratios, and emergent biomolecular condensate material properties.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".