CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA and protein synthesis mechanismsRNA Research and Splicing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 104 of the 104 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extensive identification and analysis of conserved small ORFs in animals

Open access
Mackowiak, Sebastian D., Zauber, Henrik, Bielow, Chris, Thiel, Denise, Kutz, Kamila, Calviello, Lorenzo, Mastrobuoni, Guido, Rajewsky, Nikolaus, Kempa, Stefan, Selbach, Matthias, Obermayer, Benedikt·2015·Genome Biology
DOI 10.1186/s13059-015-0742-xPMC PMC4568590

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that transcripts or transcript regions annotated as non-coding can harbor functional short open reading frames (sORFs). Loss-of-function experiments have identified essential developmental or physiological roles for a few of the encoded peptides (micropeptides), but genome-wide experimental or computational identification of functional sORFs remains challenging. RESULTS: Here, we expand our previously developed method and present results of an integrated computational pipeline for the identification of conserved sORFs in human, mouse, zebrafish, fruit fly, and the nematode C. elegans. Isolating specific conservation signatures indicative of purifying selection on amino acid (rather than nucleotide) sequence, we identify about 2,000 novel small ORFs located in the untranslated regions of canonical mRNAs or on transcripts annotated as non-coding. Predicted sORFs show stronger conservation signatures than those identified in previous studies and are sometimes conserved over large evolutionary distances. The encoded peptides have little homology to known proteins and are enriched in disordered regions and short linear interaction motifs. Published ribosome profiling data indicate translation of more than 100 novel sORFs, and mass spectrometry data provide evidence for more than 70 novel candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, we identify hundreds of previously unknown conserved sORFs in major model organisms. Our computational analyses and integration with experimental data show that these sORFs are expressed, often translated, and sometimes widely conserved, in some cases even between vertebrates and invertebrates. We thus provide an integrated resource of putatively functional micropeptides for functional validation in vivo.

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 · 10.1186/s13059-015-0742-x

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Identification of conserved sORFs in five animals. a Overview of the pipeline. (1) Annotated transcripts are searched for ORFs and specific conservation features are extracted from the multiple species alignment (2). (3) A SVM classifier is used to predict coding sORFs (≤100 aa) with high specificity and sensitivity (b). (4) sORFs overlapping with larger predicted sORFs or with conserved annotated coding exons are removed (c). d Distribution of predicted sORFs in different regions of the transcriptome. e Length distribution of predicted sORFs
Fig. 1 Identification of conserved sORFs in five animals. a Overview of the pipeline. (1) Annotated transcripts are searched for ORFs and specific conservation features are extracted from the multiple species alignment (2). (3) A SVM classifier is used to predict coding sORFs (≤100 aa) with high specificity and sensitivity (b). (4) sORFs overlapping with larger predicted sORFs or with conserved annotated coding exons are removed (c). d Distribution of predicted sORFs in different regions of the transcriptome. e Length distribution of predicted sORFsCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Predicted sORFs are under purifying selection and often widely conserved. a Adjusted phyloCSF scores for predicted sORFs are higher than those from control sORFs matched by their nucleotide conservation level (phastCons). b The dN/dS ratio of SNPs for novel predicted sORFs is smaller than for control ORFs in non-coding regions of the transcriptome, but larger than for annotated sORFs. c Percentage of sORFs conserved in ancestral species as inferred from the multiple species alignment. Numbers for informative ancestors are indicated (for example, the ancestors of primates, placental mammals, and jawed vertebrates for H. sapiens). Symbols mark different reference species as in (d). d homology clustering of predicted sORFs in different species; only clusters with at least one non-annotated member and members from more than one species are shown, with multiplicity indicated. ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05; Mann-Whitney tests in a, reciprocal Χ2 tests in b
Fig. 2 Predicted sORFs are under purifying selection and often widely conserved. a Adjusted phyloCSF scores for predicted sORFs are higher than those from control sORFs matched by their nucleotide conservation level (phastCons). b The dN/dS ratio of SNPs for novel predicted sORFs is smaller than for control ORFs in non-coding regions of the transcriptome, but larger than for annotated sORFs. c Percentage of sORFs conserved in ancestral species as inferred from the multiple species alignment. Numbers for informative ancestors are indicated (for example, the ancestors of primates, placental mammals, and jawed vertebrates for H. sapiens). Symbols mark different reference species as in (d). d homology clustering of predicted sORFs in different species; only clusters with at least one non-annotated member and members from more than one species are shown, with multiplicity indicated. ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05; Mann-Whitney tests in a, reciprocal Χ2 tests in bCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Predicted sORFs are under stronger selection than those found in other studies. Previous results obtained by ribosome profiling (a-c), mass spectrometry (d-f) or computationally (g-o) are compared with respect to their adjusted phyloCSF scores and the dN/dS ratio as indicated in the scheme (top left). For each publication analyzing sORFs in different organisms and genomic regions, the numbers of predicted sORFs that are also predicted here (before overlap filter) or at least analyzed, respectively, are given. phyloCSF scores and dN/dS ratios are compared for the sORFs that are predicted either here or in another study but not in both. tw: this work. ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05, using Mann-Whitney (phyloCSF scores) and reciprocal Χ2 tests (dN/dS), respectively
Fig. 3 Predicted sORFs are under stronger selection than those found in other studies. Previous results obtained by ribosome profiling (a-c), mass spectrometry (d-f) or computationally (g-o) are compared with respect to their adjusted phyloCSF scores and the dN/dS ratio as indicated in the scheme (top left). For each publication analyzing sORFs in different organisms and genomic regions, the numbers of predicted sORFs that are also predicted here (before overlap filter) or at least analyzed, respectively, are given. phyloCSF scores and dN/dS ratios are compared for the sORFs that are predicted either here or in another study but not in both. tw: this work. ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05, using Mann-Whitney (phyloCSF scores) and reciprocal Χ2 tests (dN/dS), respectivelyCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Properties of encoded peptide sequences. a Only a small fraction of novel peptides has significant homology to known longer proteins. b Novel predicted peptides are more disordered than annotated short proteins or conceptual products from length-matched control ORFs in non-coding regions, and they also have a higher density of linear peptide motifs (c). d Some novel sORFs are predicted to contain signal peptide sequences, but not consistently more than expected. ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05, Mann-Whitney tests in b and c, binomial test in d
Fig. 4 Properties of encoded peptide sequences. a Only a small fraction of novel peptides has significant homology to known longer proteins. b Novel predicted peptides are more disordered than annotated short proteins or conceptual products from length-matched control ORFs in non-coding regions, and they also have a higher density of linear peptide motifs (c). d Some novel sORFs are predicted to contain signal peptide sequences, but not consistently more than expected. ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05, Mann-Whitney tests in b and c, binomial test in dCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 dORFs (sORFs in 3′UTRs) are not explained by stop-codon read-through or alternative terminal exons. Results are shown for H. sapiens. a The step in the phastCons conservation track near the stop codon of the upstream CDS is only slightly less pronounced than for CDS without downstream conserved sORF. b The dORFs are closer to the CDS than control sORFs, but they are not more often in the same frame (c), and they have a similarly high number of intervening in-frame stop codons (d). e The step in the phastCons conservation track near start of predicted dORFs start is more pronounced than in other dORFs. f Even before applying the overlap filter, very few predicted dORFs overlap with annotated coding exons. ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05; n.s. not significant. Mann-Whitney tests in a, d, and e, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in b, Χ2 test in c, Binomial test in f
Fig. 5 dORFs (sORFs in 3′UTRs) are not explained by stop-codon read-through or alternative terminal exons. Results are shown for H. sapiens. a The step in the phastCons conservation track near the stop codon of the upstream CDS is only slightly less pronounced than for CDS without downstream conserved sORF. b The dORFs are closer to the CDS than control sORFs, but they are not more often in the same frame (c), and they have a similarly high number of intervening in-frame stop codons (d). e The step in the phastCons conservation track near start of predicted dORFs start is more pronounced than in other dORFs. f Even before applying the overlap filter, very few predicted dORFs overlap with annotated coding exons. ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05; n.s. not significant. Mann-Whitney tests in a, d, and e, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in b, Χ2 test in c, Binomial test in fCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 Experimental evidence supports translation of predicted sORFs and protein expression. a Translation is detected using the ORFscore method [10] on published ribosome profiling data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov D-statistic is used to assess the performance of the dataset by comparing annotated sORFs to the negative control (dark gray). Length-matched non-conserved sORFs from non-coding transcriptome regions are included for comparison (light gray). ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05 (Mann-Whitney test). b Peptide expression of many predicted sORFs is confirmed by mining in house and published mass spectrometry datasets from cell lines and model organisms
Fig. 6 Experimental evidence supports translation of predicted sORFs and protein expression. a Translation is detected using the ORFscore method [10] on published ribosome profiling data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov D-statistic is used to assess the performance of the dataset by comparing annotated sORFs to the negative control (dark gray). Length-matched non-conserved sORFs from non-coding transcriptome regions are included for comparison (light gray). ***P <0.001; **P <0.01; *P <0.05 (Mann-Whitney test). b Peptide expression of many predicted sORFs is confirmed by mining in house and published mass spectrometry datasets from cell lines and model organismsCC BY · 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

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 104 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mackowiak, S. D., Zauber, H., Bielow, C., Thiel, D., Kutz, K., Calviello, L., Mastrobuoni, G., Rajewsky, N., Kempa, S., Selbach, M., & Obermayer, B.
Affiliations
Max Delbrück Center (DE)
Corresponding author
Obermayer, Benedikt
ORCID
Venue
Genome Biology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-09-14
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
179-179
ISSN
  • 1465-6906 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-760X
DOI
10.1186/s13059-015-0742-x
PMC
PMC4568590
OpenAlex
W2154350719
Cited by
227
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Genome biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MDC Repository (Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • MDC Repository (Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
Keywords
small open reading frames, micropeptides, purifying selection, untranslated regions, non-coding transcripts, protein disorder, ribosome profiling, translation (biology), evolutionary conservation, model organisms
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Exons, Humans, Peptides, Protein Biosynthesis, Open Reading Frames, Sequence Alignment, Conserved Sequence, Codon, Terminator, 3' Untranslated Regions, Amino Acid Motifs, Mice

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