4.8 Article

TISdb: a database for alternative translation initiation in mammalian cells

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 D1, 页码 D845-D850

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1085

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1 DP2 OD006449-01, 1R01AG042400-01A1]
  2. Ellison Medical Foundation [AG-NS-0605-09]
  3. DOD Exploration-Hypothesis Development Award [W81XWH-11-1-0236]
  4. National Institutes of Health
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG042400] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH [DP2OD006449] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Proper selection of the translation initiation site (TIS) on mRNAs is crucial for the production of desired protein products. Recent studies using ribosome profiling technology uncovered a surprising variety of potential TIS sites in addition to the annotated start codon. The prevailing alternative translation reshapes the landscape of the proteome in terms of diversity and complexity. To identify the hidden coding potential of the transcriptome in mammalian cells, we developed global translation initiation sequencing (GTI-Seq) that maps genome-wide TIS positions at nearly a single nucleotide resolution. To facilitate studies of alternative translation, we created a database of alternative TIS sites identified from human and mouse cell lines based on multiple GTI-Seq replicates. The TISdb, available at http://tisdb.human.cornell.edu, includes 6991 TIS sites from 4961 human genes and 9973 TIS sites from 5668 mouse genes. The TISdb website provides a simple browser interface for query of high-confidence TIS sites and their associated open reading frames. The output of search results provides a user-friendly visualization of TIS information in the context of transcript isoforms. Together, the information in the database provides an easy reference for alternative translation in mammalian cells and will support future investigation of novel translational products.

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