4.7 Article

Adenosine deaminases that act on RNA induce reproducible changes in abundance and sequence of embryonic miRNAs

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 1468-1476

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.133025.111

关键词

-

资金

  1. Austrian Science Foundation [F43, W1207]
  2. WWTF
  3. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [F43, W1207] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adenosine deaminases that act on RNA bind double-stranded and structured RNAs and convert adenosines to inosines by hydrolytic deamination. Inosines are recognized as guanosines, and, hence, RNA editing alters the sequence information but also structure of RNAs. Editing by ADARs is widespread and essential for normal life and development. Precursors of miRNAs are abundantly edited by ADARs, but neither the abundance nor the consequences of miRNA editing has been firmly established. Using transgenic mouse embryos that are deficient in the two enzymatically active editing enzymes ADAR and ADARB1, we compare relative frequencies but also sequence composition of miRNAs in these genetically modified backgrounds to wild-type mice by next-generation sequencing. Deficiency of ADARB1 leads to a reproducible change in abundance of specific miRNAs and their predicted targets. Changes in miRNA abundance seem unrelated to editing events. Additional deletion of ADAR has surprisingly little impact on the mature miRNA repertoire, indicating that miRNA expression is primarily dependent on ADARB1. A-to-G transitions reflecting A-to-I editing events can be detected at few sites and at low frequency during the early embryonic stage investigated. Again, most editing events are ADARB1-dependent with only few editing sites being specifically edited by ADAR. Besides known editing events in miRNAs, a few novel, previously unknown editing events were identified. Some editing events are located to the seed region of miRNAs, opening the possibility that editing leads to their retargeting.

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

4.7
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