4.8 Article

Widespread purifying selection on RNA structure in mammals

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 17, 页码 8220-8236

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt596

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Queensland Research Scholarship (UQRS)
  2. Australian government
  3. Genome Research project Bioinformatics Integration Network III (BIN III)
  4. Genome Research Austria (GEN-AU)
  5. University of Vienna
  6. EU
  7. Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [631668]
  8. Garvan Institute of Medical Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evolutionarily conserved RNA secondary structures are a robust indicator of purifying selection and, consequently, molecular function. Evaluating their genome-wide occurrence through comparative genomics has consistently been plagued by high false-positive rates and divergent predictions. We present a novel benchmarking pipeline aimed at calibrating the precision of genome-wide scans for consensus RNA structure prediction. The benchmarking data obtained from two refined structure prediction algorithms, RNAz and SISSIz, were then analyzed to fine-tune the parameters of an optimized workflow for genomic sliding window screens. When applied to consistency-based multiple genome alignments of 35 mammals, our approach confidently identifies > 4 million evolutionarily constrained RNA structures using a conservative sensitivity threshold that entails historically low false discovery rates for such analyses (5-22%). These predictions comprise 13.6% of the human genome, 88% of which fall outside any known sequence-constrained element, suggesting that a large proportion of the mammalian genome is functional. As an example, our findings identify both known and novel conserved RNA structure motifs in the long noncoding RNA MALAT1. This study provides an extensive set of functional transcriptomic annotations that will assist researchers in uncovering the precise mechanisms underlying the developmental ontologies of higher eukaryotes.

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