Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Author Correction: The preponderance of nonsynonymous A-to-I RNA editing in coleoids is nonadaptive.

ABSTRACT:

SUBMITTER: Jiang D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8249491 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Author Correction: The preponderance of nonsynonymous A-to-I RNA editing in coleoids is nonadaptive.

Jiang Daohan D Zhang Jianzhi J

Nature communications 20210701 1

PMID: 34210976

Similar Datasets

The preponderance of nonsynonymous A-to-I RNA editing in coleoids is nonadaptive.

Project description:A-to-I editing enzymatically converts the base adenosine (A) in RNA molecules to inosine (I), which is recognized as guanine (G) in translation. Exceptionally abundant A-to-I editing was recently discovered in the neural tissues of coleoids (octopuses, squids, and cuttlefishes), with a greater fraction of nonsynonymous sites than synonymous sites subject to high levels of editing. Although this phenomenon is thought to indicate widespread adaptive editing, its potential advantage is unknown. Here we propose an alternative, nonadaptive explanation. Specifically, increasing the cellular editing activity permits some otherwise harmful G-to-A nonsynonymous substitutions, because the As are edited to Is at sufficiently high levels. These high editing levels are constrained upon substitutions, resulting in the predominance of nonsynonymous editing at highly edited sites. Our evidence for this explanation suggests that the prevalent nonsynonymous editing in coleoids is generally nonadaptive, as in species with much lower editing activities.

| S-EPMC6881472 | biostudies-literature

Human coding RNA editing is generally nonadaptive.

Project description:Impairment of RNA editing at a handful of coding sites causes severe disorders, prompting the view that coding RNA editing is highly advantageous. Recent genomic studies have expanded the list of human coding RNA editing sites by more than 100 times, raising the question of how common advantageous RNA editing is. Analyzing 1,783 human coding A-to-G editing sites, we show that both the frequency and level of RNA editing decrease as the importance of a site or gene increases; that during evolution, edited As are more likely than unedited As to be replaced with Gs but not with Ts or Cs; and that among nonsynonymously edited As, those that are evolutionarily least conserved exhibit the highest editing levels. These and other observations reveal the overall nonadaptive nature of coding RNA editing, despite the presence of a few sites in which editing is clearly beneficial. We propose that most observed coding RNA editing results from tolerable promiscuous targeting by RNA editing enzymes, the original physiological functions of which remain elusive.

| S-EPMC3956144 | biostudies-literature

Author Correction: RNA editing of BFP, a point mutant of GFP, using artificial APOBEC1 deaminase to restore the genetic code.