ArticleRNA biology2019
Predicting functional long non-coding RNAs validated by low throughput experiments.
Article in RNA biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- MARS and RNAcmap3: The Master Database of All Possible RNA Sequences Integrated with RNAcmap for RNA Homology Search.Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics · 2024Article
- EVlncRNA-Dpred: improved prediction of experimentally validated lncRNAs by deep learning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- New Sights Into Long Non-Coding RNA LINC01133 in Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- NAMS webserver: coding potential assessment and functional annotation of plant transcripts.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Article
- EVLncRNAs 2.0: an updated database of manually curated functional long non-coding RNAs validated by low-throughput experiments.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- From "Dark Matter" to "Star": Insight Into the Regulation Mechanisms of Plant Functional Long Non-Coding RNAs.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput techniques have uncovered hundreds and thousands of long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs). Among them, only a tiny fraction has experimentally validated functions (EVlncRNAs) by low-throughput methods. What fraction of lncRNAs from high-throughput experiments (HTlncRNAs) is truly functional is an active subject of debate. Here, we developed the first method to distinguish EVlncRNAs from HTlncRNAs and mRNAs by using Support Vector Machines and found that EVlncRNAs can be well separated from HTlncRNAs and mRNAs with 0.6 for Matthews correlation coefficient, 64% for sensitivity, and 81% for precision for the independent human test set. The most useful features for classification are related to sequence conservations at RNA (for separating from HTlncRNAs) and protein (for separating from mRNA) levels. The method is found to be robust as the human-RNA-trained model is applicable to independent mouse RNAs with similar accuracy and to a lesser extent to plant RNAs. The method can recover newly discovered EVlncRNAs with high sensitivity. Its application to randomly selected 2000 human HTlncRNAs indicates that the majority of HTlncRNAs is probably non-functional but a large portion (nearly 30%) are likely functional. In other words, there is an ample number of lncRNAs whose specific biological roles are yet to be discovered. The method developed here is expected to speed up and reduce the cost of the discovery by prioritizing potentially functional lncRNAs prior to experimental validation. EVlncRNA-pred is available as a web server at http://biophy.dzu.edu.cn/lncrnapred/index.html . All datasets used in this study can be obtained from the same website.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.