CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of CDS-located miRNA target sites suggests that they can effectively inhibit translation

Hausser, Jean, Syed, Afzal Pasha, Bilen, Biter, Zavolan, Mihaela·2013·Genome Research
DOI 10.1101/gr.139758.112PMC PMC3613578
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Most of what is presently known about how miRNAs regulate gene expression comes from studies that characterized the regulatory effect of miRNA binding sites located in the 3′ untranslated regions (UTR) of mRNAs. In recent years, there has been increasing evidence that miRNAs also bind in the coding region (CDS), but the implication of these interactions remains obscure because they have a smaller impact on mRNA stability compared with miRNA-target interactions that involve 3′ UTRs. Here we show that miRNA-complementary sites that are located in both CDS and 3′-UTRs are under selection pressure and share the same sequence and structure properties. Analyzing recently published data of ribosome-protected fragment profiles upon miRNA transfection from the perspective of the location of miRNA-complementary sites, we find that sites located in the CDS are most potent in inhibiting translation, while sites located in the 3′ UTR are more efficient at triggering mRNA degradation. Our study suggests that miRNAs may combine targeting of CDS and 3′ UTR to flexibly tune the time scale and magnitude of their post-transcriptional regulatory effects.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/gr.139758.112

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. (A) CDS- and 3′ UTR-located miRNA binding sites that induce mRNA degradation or are isolated in EIF2C2 CLIP experiments are under stronger selection pressure compared with miRNA-complementary sites that were not functional in these experiments; 2274 CDS- and 3956 3′ UTR-located sites that induce mRNA degradation are compared with 3513 CDS- and 3268 3′ UTR-located sites that do not induce mRNA degradation; 751 CDS- and 786 3′ UTR-located sites isolated in EIF2C2 CLIP experiments are compared with 1059 CDS- and 956 3′ UTR-located sites that do not induce EIF2C2 binding. (B) Scatter plot of the inferred probabilities that CDS- and 3′ UTR-located sites complementary to individual miRNAs are under selection. (Dashed red line) First principal component of the scatter.
Figure 1. (A) CDS- and 3′ UTR-located miRNA binding sites that induce mRNA degradation or are isolated in EIF2C2 CLIP experiments are under stronger selection pressure compared with miRNA-complementary sites that were not functional in these experiments; 2274 CDS- and 3956 3′ UTR-located sites that induce mRNA degradation are compared with 3513 CDS- and 3268 3′ UTR-located sites that do not induce mRNA degradation; 751 CDS- and 786 3′ UTR-located sites isolated in EIF2C2 CLIP experiments are compared with 1059 CDS- and 956 3′ UTR-located sites that do not induce EIF2C2 binding. (B) Scatter plot of the inferred probabilities that CDS- and 3′ UTR-located sites complementary to individual miRNAs are under selection. (Dashed red line) First principal component of the scatter.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Individual miRNAs differ in their preference for targeting the CDS and the 3′ UTR as well as in their tendency to simultaneously target the CDS and the 3′ UTR of individual genes. (A) Number of complementary motifs, weighted by their respective ElMMo posteriors, of individual miRNAs in CDS vs. 3′ UTRs. (Red dashed line) Scaling between the number of CDS and 3′ UTR sites, defined as the line that goes through the origin and maximizes the projected variance. (B) Scatter plot of the CDS vs. 3′ UTR targeting preference of individual miRNAs against the fold enrichment in transcripts that are targeted in both the CDS and 3′ UTR relative to what would be expected if the sites were independently distributed. (Red dots) miRNAs with statistically significant co-targeting enrichment (P < 0.05 in Fisher's test after Bonferroni correction).
Figure 2. Individual miRNAs differ in their preference for targeting the CDS and the 3′ UTR as well as in their tendency to simultaneously target the CDS and the 3′ UTR of individual genes. (A) Number of complementary motifs, weighted by their respective ElMMo posteriors, of individual miRNAs in CDS vs. 3′ UTRs. (Red dashed line) Scaling between the number of CDS and 3′ UTR sites, defined as the line that goes through the origin and maximizes the projected variance. (B) Scatter plot of the CDS vs. 3′ UTR targeting preference of individual miRNAs against the fold enrichment in transcripts that are targeted in both the CDS and 3′ UTR relative to what would be expected if the sites were independently distributed. (Red dots) miRNAs with statistically significant co-targeting enrichment (P < 0.05 in Fisher's test after Bonferroni correction).CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 3. CDS and 3′ UTR sites share common sequence and structure properties. Sets of functional and nonfunctional binding sites were defined according to four different criteria—selective pressure, efficacy in mRNA degradation, efficacy in reducing protein levels, and binding to EIF2C2—each corresponding to a different panel. We then compared t-values obtained in comparing functional and nonfunctional sites from CDS (x-axis) and 3′ UTR (y-axis) regions. Each property is represented in each plot as a dot. Positive and negative values denote positive and negative predictors of functional miRNA binding sites, respectively.
Figure 3. CDS and 3′ UTR sites share common sequence and structure properties. Sets of functional and nonfunctional binding sites were defined according to four different criteria—selective pressure, efficacy in mRNA degradation, efficacy in reducing protein levels, and binding to EIF2C2—each corresponding to a different panel. We then compared t-values obtained in comparing functional and nonfunctional sites from CDS (x-axis) and 3′ UTR (y-axis) regions. Each property is represented in each plot as a dot. Positive and negative values denote positive and negative predictors of functional miRNA binding sites, respectively.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 4. mRNA destabilization occurs mainly through sites located in the 3′ UTR. Shown are log2 fold changes in mRNA levels upon miRNA transfection in the experiments of (A) Linsley et al. (2007) and (B) Grimson et al. (2007). mRNAs with binding sites located in the CDS only, in the 3′ UTR only, and in both CDS and in 3′ UTR were analyzed separately. Fold changes were normalized to the average fold change of mRNAs that did not contain canonical binding sites to the transfected miRNA.
Figure 4. mRNA destabilization occurs mainly through sites located in the 3′ UTR. Shown are log2 fold changes in mRNA levels upon miRNA transfection in the experiments of (A) Linsley et al. (2007) and (B) Grimson et al. (2007). mRNAs with binding sites located in the CDS only, in the 3′ UTR only, and in both CDS and in 3′ UTR were analyzed separately. Fold changes were normalized to the average fold change of mRNAs that did not contain canonical binding sites to the transfected miRNA.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 5. CDS-located binding sites transiently inhibit translation in miRNA transfection experiments. The figure shows log2 fold changes in mRNA levels (mRNA-seq), and ribosome-protected fragments (rpf) 12 and 32 h after hsa-miR-155-5p and hsa-miR-1 transfection. Changes in translation were estimated from the difference between changes in rpf and changes in mRNA levels. mRNAs with precisely one seed match to the transfected miRNA in the CDS and no seed match in the 3′ UTR were analyzed separately from mRNAs with precisely one seed match in the 3′ UTR and no seed match in the CDS. Fold changes were determined relative to the average fold change of mRNAs with no seed matches.
Figure 5. CDS-located binding sites transiently inhibit translation in miRNA transfection experiments. The figure shows log2 fold changes in mRNA levels (mRNA-seq), and ribosome-protected fragments (rpf) 12 and 32 h after hsa-miR-155-5p and hsa-miR-1 transfection. Changes in translation were estimated from the difference between changes in rpf and changes in mRNA levels. mRNAs with precisely one seed match to the transfected miRNA in the CDS and no seed match in the 3′ UTR were analyzed separately from mRNAs with precisely one seed match in the 3′ UTR and no seed match in the CDS. Fold changes were determined relative to the average fold change of mRNAs with no seed matches.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp565 · DOI
  2. 1997, Postfertilization deadenylation of mRNAs in Xenopus laevis embryos is sufficient to cause their degradation at the blastula stage, Mol Cell Biol, 17, 209, 10.1128/MCB.17.1.209 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.07.031 · DOI
  4. 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31820db125 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1038/embor.2012.82 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.04.031 · DOI
  8. 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.23.090506.123406 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1038/nature08170 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 2012, miRNAs' strict schedule, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, 13, 340, 10.1038/nrm3354 · DOI
  11. 10.1126/science.1215691 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.12.024 · DOI
  13. 10.1371/journal.pone.0018067 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/nrg2290 · DOI
  15. 10.1073/pnas.0803230105 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1038/leu.2009.246 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1002/gcc.20709 · DOI
  18. 10.1186/1471-2105-8-69 · DOI
  19. 10.1126/science.1122689 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1038/ncb1722 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.molcel.2007.06.017 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1038/nsmb.1552 · DOI
  23. 10.1038/nature09267 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.009 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1101/gr.091181.109 · DOI
  26. 10.1038/nature03552 · DOI
  27. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2795(200005)56:1<12::AID-MRD3>3.0.CO;2-# · DOI
  28. 10.1038/ncb1681 · DOI
  29. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp635 · DOI
  30. 10.1007/s00239-005-0273-2 · DOI
  31. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105218 · DOI
  32. 10.1073/pnas.0709971104 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 2008, Interplay between microRNAs and RNA-binding proteins determines developmental processes, Cell Cycle, 7, 899, 10.4161/cc.7.7.5644 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.034 · DOI
  35. 10.1093/nar/gkq940 · DOI
  36. 10.1126/science.1171347 · DOI
  37. 10.1038/nmeth.1608 · DOI
  38. 10.1105/tpc.108.063412 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.cell.2004.12.035 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1128/MCB.02005-06 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1101/gad.2038811 · DOI
  42. 10.1038/nm.2512 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1101/gad.1861409 · DOI
  44. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016250 · DOI
  45. 10.1371/journal.pone.0009429 · DOI
  46. 10.1073/pnas.1006172107 · DOI
  47. 10.1101/gr.121210.111 · DOI
  48. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3369 · DOI
  49. 10.1002/stem.431 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1089/scd.2009.0426 · DOI
  51. 10.1186/1471-2105-11-292 · DOI
  52. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2004.02.019 · DOI
  53. 10.1038/ncomms1532 · DOI
  54. 10.1002/mrd.1080260113 · DOI
  55. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.02.019 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.037 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Hausser, J., Syed, A. P., Bilen, B., & Zavolan, M.
Venue
Genome Research
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Published
2013-01-18
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
604-615
ISSN
1088-9051
DOI
10.1101/gr.139758.112
PMC
PMC3613578
Cited by
317
References
8
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