4.8 Article

Chromatin signature reveals over a thousand highly conserved large non-coding RNAs in mammals

期刊

NATURE
卷 458, 期 7235, 页码 223-227

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature07672

关键词

-

资金

  1. Human Frontier Science Program Organization
  2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
  3. National Human Genome Research Institute
  4. Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is growing recognition that mammalian cells produce many thousands of large intergenic transcripts(1-4). However, the functional significance of these transcripts has been particularly controversial. Although there are some well-characterized examples, most (>95%) show little evidence of evolutionary conservation and have been suggested to represent transcriptional noise(5,6). Here we report a new approach to identifying large non-coding RNAs using chromatin-state maps to discover discrete transcriptional units intervening known protein-coding loci. Our approach identified similar to 1,600 large multi-exonic RNAs across four mouse cell types. In sharp contrast to previous collections, these large intervening non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs) show strong purifying selection in their genomic loci, exonic sequences and promoter regions, with greater than 95% showing clear evolutionary conservation. We also developed a functional genomics approach that assigns putative functions to each lincRNA, demonstrating a diverse range of roles for lincRNAs in processes from embryonic stem cell pluripotency to cell proliferation. We obtained independent functional validation for the predictions for over 100 lincRNAs, using cell-based assays. In particular, we demonstrate that specific lincRNAs are transcriptionally regulated by key transcription factors in these processes such as p53, NF kappa B, Sox2, Oct4 (also known as Pou5f1) and Nanog. Together, these results define a unique collection of functional lincRNAs that are highly conserved and implicated in diverse biological processes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据