MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409658053 · doi:10.48130/gcomm-0025-0008

Ribosome footprinting reveals potential roles for spliced leader sequences in translation initiation

2025· article· en· W4409658053 on OpenAlexaff
Zhiyi Ye, Zhenhua Wu, David Morse, Bo Song

Bibliographic record

VenueGenomics Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootprintingTranslation (biology)Internal ribosome entry siteRibosomeComputational biologyEukaryotic translationBiologyGeneticsCell biologyMessenger RNABase sequenceRNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trans-splicing of a spliced leader (SL) to the 5' ends of mRNAs is used to produce mature mRNAs in several phyla of great importance to human health and marine ecosystems. In some organisms, the SL plays a role in translation, but in other organisms, particularly dinoflagellates, the SL function is poorly understood. We hypothesized dinoflagellate SL can potentially serve to provide a good Kozak consensus to a translation initiation site. Here, we have examined ribosome-protected RNA fragments (RPF) that contain a spliced leader in Dinophyceae, Nematoda, and Euglenozoa. We find that SL's with A/G-rich 3' ends (Dinophyceae and Nematoda) can provide Kozak consensus while those with A/G-poor 3' ends (Euglenozoa) are not involved in translation initiation. The SL-containing RPFs also reveal the use of alternative start codons in both dinoflagellates and nematodes. Overall, our results suggest one possible role of SL's, depending on their sequence, is to increase the efficiency of an initiation site.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomics Communications→Same topicRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms→French-language works237,207→