Repertoire and evolution of miRNA genes in four divergent nematode species
Abstract
miRNAs are ∼22-nt RNA molecules that play important roles in post-transcriptional regulation. We have performed small RNA sequencing in the nematodes Caenorhabditis elegans, C. briggsae, C. remanei, and Pristionchus pacificus, which have diverged up to 400 million years ago, to establish the repertoire and evolutionary dynamics of miRNAs in these species. In addition to previously known miRNA genes from C. elegans and C. briggsae we demonstrate expression of many of their homologs in C. remanei and P. pacificus, and identified in total more than 100 novel expressed miRNA genes, the majority of which belong to P. pacificus. Interestingly, more than half of all identified miRNA genes are conserved at the seed level in all four nematode species, whereas only a few miRNAs appear to be species specific. In our compendium of miRNAs we observed evidence for known mechanisms of miRNA evolution including antisense transcription and arm switching, as well as miRNA family expansion through gene duplication. In addition, we identified a novel mode of miRNA evolution, termed “hairpin shifting,” in which an alternative hairpin is formed with up- or downstream sequences, leading to shifting of the hairpin and creation of novel miRNA* species. Finally, we identified 21U-RNAs in all four nematodes, including P. pacificus, where the upstream 21U-RNA motif is more diverged. The identification and systematic analysis of small RNA repertoire in four nematode species described here provides a valuable resource for understanding the evolutionary dynamics of miRNA-mediated gene regulation.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In some closely-related species, the preferred miRNA arm for homologous miRNA genes is not the same, consistent with the idea that, in at least some cases, miRNA arm switching could be evolutionarily favored.
“Interestingly, in some closely‐related species, the preferred miRNA arm for homologous miRNA genes is not the same (de Wit et al., 2009; Griffiths‐Jones et al., 2011; Marco et al., 2010), consistent with the idea that, in at least some cases, miRNA arm switching could be evolutionarily favored.”
From microRNA strand selection: Unwinding the rules (2021) · cites this paper as de Wit et al., 2009
miRNA arm switching has been proposed to influence miRNA evolution, as altered selection of a miRNA strand by Argonaute would be expected to result in a different mRNA target repertoire.
“Interestingly, miRNA arm switching has been proposed to influence miRNA evolution, as altered selection of a miRNA strand by Argonaute would be expected to result in a different mRNA target repertoire (de Wit, Linsen, Cuppen, & Berezikov, 2009; Griffiths‐Jones, Hui, Marco, & Ronshaugen, 2011; Marco, Hui, Ronshaugen, & Griffiths‐Jones, 2010).”
From microRNA strand selection: Unwinding the rules (2021) · cites this paper as de Wit, Linsen, Cuppen, & Berezikov, 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The role of site accessibility in microRNA target recognition
Kertesz, M., Iovino, N., Unnerstall, U., Gaul, U., & Segal, E. (2007) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng2135 · Cited by 2,460 · see citing works
Xie, X., Lu, J., Kulbokas, E. J., Golub, T. R., Mootha, V., Lindblad-Toh, K., Lander, E. S., & Kellis, M. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03441 · Cited by 1,872 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Hillier LW, Miller RD, Baird SE, Chinwalla A, Fulton LA, Koboldt DC, Waterston RH. 2007. Comparison of C. elegans and C. briggsae genome sequences reveals extensive conservation of chromosome organization and synteny. PLoS Biol 5: e167. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050167. · DOI
- Hochsmann M, Voss B, Giegerich R. 2004. Pure multiple RNA secondary structure alignments: A progressive profile approach. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 1: 53-62.
- Pervouchine DD, Graber JH, Kasif S. 2003. On the normalization of RNA equilibrium free energy to the length of the sequence. Nucleic Acids Res 31: e49. doi: 10.1093/nar/gng049. · DOI
- Stark A, Brennecke J, Russell RB, Cohen SM. 2003. Identification of Drosophila MicroRNA targets. PLoS Biol 1: e60. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pbio.0000060. · DOI
- Stein LD, Bao Z, Blasiar D, Blumenthal T, Brent MR, Chen N, Chinwalla A, Clarke L, Clee C, Coghlan A, et al. 2003. The genome sequence of Caenorhabditis briggsae: A platform for comparative genomics. PLoS Biol 1: e45. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0000045. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
microRNA strand selection: Unwinding the rules
Medley, J. C., Panzade, G., & Zinovyeva, A. Y. (2021) · WIREs RNA · doi:10.1002/wrna.1627 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Soldà, G., Robusto, M., Primignani, P., Castorina, P., Benzoni, E., Cesarani, A., Ambrosetti, U., Asselta, R., & Duga, S. (2012) · Human Molecular Genetics · doi:10.1093/hmg/ddr493 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Oliveira, A. C. D., Bovolenta, L. A., Figueiredo, L., Ribeiro, A. D. O., Pereira, B. J. A., de Almeida, T. R. A., Campos, V. F., Patton, J. G., & Pinhal, D. (2024) · Evolutionary Bioinformatics · doi:10.1177/11769343241263230 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- de Wit, E., Linsen, S. E. V., Cuppen, E., & Berezikov, E.
- Venue
- Genome Research
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2009-09-15
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2064-2074
- ISSN
- 1088-9051
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 2
- 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