Selection on synonymous sites: the unwanted transcript hypothesis.

Although translational selection to favour codons that match the most abundant tRNAs is not readily observed in humans, there is nonetheless selection in humans on synonymous mutations. We hypothesize that much of this synonymous site selection can be explained in terms of protection against unwanted RNAs - spurious transcripts, mis-spliced forms or RNAs derived from transposable elements or viruses. We propose not only that selection on synonymous sites functions to reduce the rate of creation of unwanted transcripts (for example, through selection on exonic splice enhancers and cryptic splice sites) but also that high-GC content (but low-CpG content), together with intron presence and position, is both particular to functional native mRNAs and used to recognize transcripts as native. In support of this hypothesis, transcription, nuclear export, liquid phase condensation and RNA degradation have all recently been shown to promote GC-rich transcripts and suppress AU/CpG-rich ones. With such 'traps' being set against AU/CpG-rich transcripts, the codon usage of native genes has, in turn, evolved to avoid such suppression. That parallel filters against AU/CpG-rich transcripts also affect the endosomal import of RNAs further supports the unwanted transcript hypothesis of synonymous site selection and explains the similar design rules that have enabled the successful use of transgenes and RNA vaccines.

Both trust in, and polarization of trust in, relevant sciences have increased through the COVID-19 pandemic.

While attempts to promote acceptance of well-evidenced science have historically focused on increasing scientific knowledge, it is now thought that for acceptance of science, trust in, rather than simply knowledge of, science is foundational. Here we employ the COVID-19 pandemic as a natural experiment on trust modulation as it has enabled unprecedented exposure of science. We ask whether trust in science has on the average altered, whether trust has changed the same way for all and, if people have responded differently, what predicts these differences? We 1) categorize the nature of self-reported change in trust in "scientists" in a random sample of over 2000 UK adults after the introduction of the first COVID vaccines, 2) ask whether any reported change is likely to be real through consideration of both a negative control and through experiment, and 3) address what predicts change in trust considering sex, educational attainment, religiosity, political attitude, age and pre-pandemic reported trust. We find that many more (33%) report increased trust towards "scientists" than report decreased trust (7%), effects of this magnitude not being seen in negative controls. Only age and prior degree of trust predict change in trust, the older population increasing trust more. The prior degree of trust effect is such that those who say they did not trust science prior to the pandemic are more likely to report becoming less trusting, indicative of both trust polarization and a backfire effect. Since change in trust is predictive of willingness to have a COVID-19 vaccine, it is likely that these changes have public health consequences.