Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15373947›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2004

Simple statistical models predict C-to-U edited sites in plant mitochondrial RNA.

Michael P Cummings, Daniel S Myers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. RNA Editing in Chloroplast: Advancements and Opportunities.Current issues in molecular biology · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Characteristics and prediction of RNA editing sites in transcripts of the Moss Takakia lepidozioides chloroplast.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2008
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael P CummingsCenter for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3360, USA. mike@umiacs.umd.edu.
Daniel S Myers
University of Maryland, College Park · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRNA editing is the process whereby an RNA sequence is modified from the sequence of the corresponding DNA template. In the mitochondria of land plants, some cytidines are converted to uridines before translation. Despite substantial study, the molecular biological mechanism by which C-to-U RNA editing proceeds remains relatively obscure, although several experimental studies have implicated a role for cis-recognition. A highly non-random distribution of nucleotides is observed in the immediate vicinity of edited sites (within 20 nucleotides 5' and 3'), but no precise consensus motif has been identified.

resultsData for analysis were derived from the the complete mitochondrial genomes of Arabidopsis thaliana, Brassica napus, and Oryza sativa; additionally, a combined data set of observations across all three genomes was generated. We selected datasets based on the 20 nucleotides 5' and the 20 nucleotides 3' of edited sites and an equivalently sized and appropriately constructed null-set of non-edited sites. We used tree-based statistical methods and random forests to generate models of C-to-U RNA editing based on the nucleotides surrounding the edited/non-edited sites and on the estimated folding energies of those regions. Tree-based statistical methods based on primary sequence data surrounding edited/non-edited sites and estimates of free energy of folding yield models with optimistic re-substitution-based estimates of approximately 0.71 accuracy, approximately 0.64 sensitivity, and approximately 0.88 specificity. Random forest analysis yielded better models and more exact performance estimates with approximately 0.74 accuracy, approximately 0.72 sensitivity, and approximately 0.81 specificity for the combined observations.

conclusionsSimple models do moderately well in predicting which cytidines will be edited to uridines, and provide the first quantitative predictive models for RNA edited sites in plant mitochondria. Our analysis shows that the identity of the nucleotide -1 to the edited C and the estimated free energy of folding for a 41 nt region surrounding the edited C are the most important variables that distinguish most edited from non-edited sites. However, the results suggest that primary sequence data and simple free energy of folding calculations alone are insufficient to make highly accurate predictions.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalArabidopsisBrassica napusCytidineModels, GeneticOryzaPlantsPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRNARNA EditingRNA, MessengerRNA, MitochondrialSensitivity and SpecificityUridineCytidineRNARNA, MessengerRNA, MitochondrialUridine

Identifiers

PMID15373947
PMCPMC521485
OpenAlexW1641549771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.