Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 323

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Redefining the structural motifs that determine RNA binding and RNA editing by pentatricopeptide repeat proteins in land plants

Open access
Cheng, Shifeng, Gutmann, Bernard, Zhong, Xiao, Ye, Yongtao, Fisher, Mark F., Bai, Fengqi, Castleden, Ian, Song, Yue, Song, Bo, Huang, Jiaying, Liu, Xin, Xu, Xun, Lim, Boon L., Bond, Charles S., Yiu, Siu‐Ming, Small, Ian·2016·The Plant Journal

Abstract

Summary: The pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) proteins form one of the largest protein families in land plants. They are characterised by tandem 30–40 amino acid motifs that form an extended binding surface capable of sequence‐specific recognition of RNA strands. Almost all of them are post‐translationally targeted to plastids and mitochondria, where they play important roles in post‐transcriptional processes including splicing, RNA editing and the initiation of translation. A code describing how PPR proteins recognise their RNA targets promises to accelerate research on these proteins, but making use of this code requires accurate definition and annotation of all of the various nucleotide‐binding motifs in each protein. We have used a structural modelling approach to define 10 different variants of the PPR motif found in plant proteins, in addition to the putative deaminase motif that is found at the C‐terminus of many RNA‐editing factors. We show that the super‐helical RNA‐binding surface of RNA‐editing factors is potentially longer than previously recognised. We used the redefined motifs to develop accurate and consistent annotations of PPR sequences from 109 genomes. We report a high error rate in PPR gene models in many public plant proteomes, due to gene fusions and insertions of spurious introns. These consistently annotated datasets across a wide range of species are valuable resources for future comparative genomics studies, and an essential pre‐requisite for accurate large‐scale computational predictions of PPR targets. We have created a web portal (http://www.plantppr.com) that provides open access to these resources for the community.

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 · 10.1111/tpj.13121

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cheng, S., Gutmann, B., Zhong, X., Ye, Y., Fisher, M. F., Bai, F., Castleden, I., Song, Y., Song, B., Huang, J., Liu, X., Xu, X., Lim, B. L., Bond, C. S., Yiu, S., & Small, I.
Venue
The Plant Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-02
Volume
85
Issue
4
Pages
532-547
ISSN
  • 0960-7412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-313X
OpenAlex
W2416174964
Cited by
323
References
3
FWCI
17.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.