4.8 Article

Revisiting Criteria for Plant MicroRNA Annotation in the Era of Big Data

期刊

PLANT CELL
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 272-284

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1105/tpc.17.00851

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [1339207, 1257869, 1339229]
  2. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1257869, 1649424, 1339229] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1339207] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are similar to 21-nucleotide-long regulatory RNAs that arise from endonucleolytic processing of hairpin precursors. Many function as essential posttranscriptional regulators of target mRNAs and long noncoding RNAs. Alongside miRNAs, plants also produce large numbers of short interfering RNAs (siRNAs), which are distinguished from miRNAs primarily by their biogenesis (typically processed from long double-stranded RNA instead of single-stranded hairpins) and functions (typically via roles in transcriptional regulation instead of posttranscriptional regulation). Next-generation DNA sequencing methods have yielded extensive data sets of plant small RNAs, resulting in many miRNA annotations. However, it has become clear that many miRNA annotations are questionable. The sheer number of endogenous siRNAs compared with miRNAs has been a major factor in the erroneous annotation of siRNAs as miRNAs. Here, we provide updated criteria for the confident annotation of plant miRNAs, suitable for the era of big data from DNA sequencing. The updated criteria emphasize replication and the minimization of false positives, and they require next-generation sequencing of small RNAs. We argue that improved annotation systems are needed for miRNAs and all other classes of plant small RNAs. Finally, to illustrate the complexities of miRNA and siRNA annotation, we review the evolution and functions of miRNAs and siRNAs in plants.

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