4.8 Article

Thousands of human non-AUG extended proteoforms lack evidence of evolutionary selection among mammals

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-35595-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland [20/FFP-A/8929]
  2. SFI-HRB-Wellcome Trust Biomedical Research Partnership (Investigator Award in Science) [210692/Z/18/Z]
  3. Science Foundation Ireland Centre for Research Training in Genomics Data Science [18/CRT/6214]
  4. Russian Science Foundation [19-14-00152]
  5. Irish Research Council
  6. National Human Genome Research Institute of the National Institutes of Health [2U41HG007234]
  7. European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  8. Wellcome Trust [210692/Z/18/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By analyzing a large number of Ribo-seq datasets and genomic alignment data, this study reveals that the number of non-AUG initiated proteoforms greatly exceeds those with strong phylogenetic support. This suggests that the protein coding potential of the human genome is underestimated, and multiple proteins can be encoded by the same genomic loci.
The synthesis of most proteins begins at AUG codons, yet a small number of non-AUG initiated proteoforms are also known. Here we analyse a large number of publicly available Ribo-seq datasets to identify novel, previously uncharacterised non-AUG proteoforms using Trips-Viz implementation of a novel algorithm for detecting translated ORFs. In parallel we analyse genomic alignment of 120 mammals to identify evidence of protein coding evolution in sequences encoding potential extensions. Unexpectedly we find that the number of non-AUG proteoforms identified with ribosome profiling data greatly exceeds those with strong phylogenetic support suggesting their recent evolution. Our study argues that the protein coding potential of human genome greatly exceeds that detectable through comparative genomics and exposes the existence of multiple proteins encoded by the same genomic loci.

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