4.7 Article

Evolutionary dynamics and tissue specificity of human long noncoding RNAs in six mammals

Journal

GENOME RESEARCH
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 616-628

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.165035.113

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Fund (Erwin Schrodinger Fellowship) [J2966-B12]
  2. NIH [U54-HG004555, R01-HG004037]
  3. NSF CAREER [0644282]
  4. DARPA [D12AP0004]
  5. NHGRI Center for Excellence in Genome Science [1P50HG006193]
  6. Broad Institute SPARC program
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences
  8. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [0644282] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Long intergenic noncoding RNAs (lincRNAs) play diverse regulatory roles in human development and disease, but little is known about their evolutionary history and constraint. Here, we characterize human lincRNA expression patterns in nine tissues across six mammalian species and multiple individuals. Of the 1898 human lincRNAs expressed in these tissues, we find orthologous transcripts for 80% in chimpanzee, 63% in rhesus, 39% in cow, 38% in mouse, and 35% in rat. Mammalian-expressed lincRNAs show remarkably strong conservation of tissue specificity, suggesting that it is selectively maintained. In contrast, abundant splice-site turnover suggests that exact splice sites are not critical. Relative to evolutionarily young lincRNAs, mammalian-expressed lincRNAs show higher primary sequence conservation in their promoters and exons, increased proximity to protein-coding genes enriched for tissue-specific functions, fewer repeat elements, and more frequent single-exon transcripts. Remarkably, we find that similar to 20% of human lincRNAs are not expressed beyond chimpanzee and are undetectable even in rhesus. These hominid-specific lincRNAs are more tissue specific, enriched for testis, and faster evolving within the human lineage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available