Cited by 124RNA Research and SplicingGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Ultraconserved elements in insect genomes: A highly conserved intronic sequence implicated in the control of homothorax mRNA splicing

Open access
Glazov, Evgeny A., Pheasant, Michael, McGraw, Elizabeth A., Bejerano, Gill, Mattick, John S.·2005·Genome Research

Abstract

Recently, we identified a large number of ultraconserved (uc) sequences in noncoding regions of human, mouse, and rat genomes that appear to be essential for vertebrate and amniote ontogeny. Here, we used similar methods to identify ultraconserved genomic regions between the insect species Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila pseudoobscura, as well as the more distantly related Anopheles gambiae. As with vertebrates, ultraconserved sequences in insects appear to occur primarily in intergenic and intronic sequences, and at intron-exon junctions. The sequences are significantly associated with genes encoding developmental regulators and transcription factors, but are less frequent and are smaller in size than in vertebrates. The longest identical, nongapped orthologous match between the three genomes was found within the homothorax (hth) gene. This sequence spans an internal exon-intron junction, with the majority located within the intron, and is predicted to form a highly stable stem-loop RNA structure. Real-time quantitative PCR analysis of different hth splice isoforms and Northern blotting showed that the conserved element is associated with a high incidence of intron retention in hth pre-mRNA, suggesting that the conserved intronic element is critically important in the post-transcriptional regulation of hth expression in Diptera.

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.3545105

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • The apparent connection with RNA editing occurs also in insects; the RNA-edited potassium channel genes shaker, ether-a-go-go, and slowpoke each overlap four or more HCEs.

    “The apparent connection with RNA editing occurs also in insects; the RNA-edited potassium channel genes shaker, ether-a-go-go, and slowpoke (Hoopengardner et al. 2003) each overlap four or more HCEs (see related observations by Glazov et al. 2005).”

    From Evolutionarily conserved elements in vertebrate, insect, worm, and yeast genomes (2005) · cites this paper as Glazov et al. 2005

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bergman, C.M., Carlson, J.W., and Celniker, S.E. 2004. Drosophila DNase I footprint database: A systematic genome annotation of transcription factor binding sites in the fruitfly, D. melanogaster. Bioinformatics doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti173. · DOI
  2. Hefferon, T.W., Groman, J.D., Yurk, C.E., and Cutting, G.R. 2004. A variable dinucleotide repeat in the CFTR gene contributes to phenotype diversity by forming RNA secondary structures that alter splicing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101: 3504-3509.
  3. Howe, K.J. and Ares, M. 1997. Intron self-complementarity enforces exon inclusion in a yeast pre-mRNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 94: 12467-12472.
  4. Kent, W.J., Baertsch, R., Hinrichs, A., Miller, W., and Haussler, D. 2003. Evolution's cauldron: Duplication, deletion, and rearrangement in the mouse and human genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100: 11484-11489.
  5. Powell, J.R. 1996. Progress and prospects in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  6. Rothwell, W.F. and Sullivan, W. 2000. Fluorescent analysis of Drosophila embryos. In Drosophila Protocols (eds. W. Sullivan et al.), pp. 151-157. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glazov, E. A., Pheasant, M., McGraw, E. A., Bejerano, G., & Mattick, J. S.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2005-05-17
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
800-808
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112555386
Cited by
124
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
ultraconserved elements, intron retention, alternative splicing, post-transcriptional regulation, Drosophila melanogaster, Drosophila pseudoobscura, Anopheles gambiae, insect genomes, developmental regulators
MeSH terms
Animals, Anopheles, Drosophila, Gene Expression Regulation, Molecular Sequence Data, Phylogeny, RNA Splicing, RNA, Messenger, Homeodomain Proteins, RNA Splice Sites, Drosophila Proteins

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