Cited by 1,833

Endogenous microRNA sponges: evidence and controversy

Thomson, Daniel W., Dinger, Marcel E.·2016·Nature Reviews Genetics

Abstract

The competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) hypothesis proposes that transcripts with shared microRNA (miRNA) binding sites compete for post-transcriptional control. This hypothesis has gained substantial attention as a unifying function for long non-coding RNAs, pseudogene transcripts and circular RNAs, as well as an alternative function for messenger RNAs. Empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis is accumulating but not without attracting scepticism. Recent studies that model transcriptome-wide binding-site abundance suggest that physiological changes in expression of most individual transcripts will not compromise miRNA activity. In this Review, we critically evaluate the evidence for and against the ceRNA hypothesis to assess the impact of endogenous miRNA-sponge interactions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrg.2016.20

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • circRNAs, which have been proposed to act as miRNA sponges, could influence miRNA arm availability by sequestering miRNAs that have target sites within the circRNA.

    “It is also possible that circRNAs, which have been proposed to act as miRNA sponges (reviewed in Kristensen et al., 2019; Thomson & Dinger, 2016), could influence miRNA arm availability by sequestering miRNAs that have target sites within the circRNA.”

    From microRNA strand selection: Unwinding the rules (2021) · cites this paper as Thomson & Dinger, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Thomson, D. W., & Dinger, M. E.
Venue
Nature Reviews Genetics
Published
2016-04-04
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
272-283
ISSN
  • 1471-0056
  • 1471-0064
Cited by
1,833
References
9
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review