Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18939975›Full record

ArticleBiology direct2008

Did RNA editing in plant organellar genomes originate under natural selection or through genetic drift?

Richard W Jobson, Yin-Long Qiu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology direct, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Unraveling the mitochondrial genome ofFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  9. The organelle genomes of the endangered seagrassFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Organellar-genome analyses from the lycophyte genusFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A study of RNA-editing inForestry research · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Richard W JobsonDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1048, USA. rjobson@univ-montp2.fr
Yin-Long Qiu
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe C<-->U substitution types of RNA editing have been observed frequently in organellar genomes of land plants. Although various attempts have been made to explain why such a seemingly inefficient genetic mechanism would have evolved, no satisfactory explanation exists in our view. In this study, we examined editing patterns in chloroplast genomes of the hornwort Anthoceros formosae and the fern Adiantum capillus-veneris and in mitochondrial genomes of the angiosperms Arabidopsis thaliana, Beta vulgaris and Oryza sativa, to gain an understanding of the question of how RNA editing originated.

resultsWe found that 1) most editing sites were distributed at the 2nd and 1st codon positions, 2) editing affected codons that resulted in larger hydrophobicity and molecular size changes much more frequently than those with little change involved, 3) editing uniformly increased protein hydrophobicity, 4) editing occurred more frequently in ancestrally T-rich sequences, which were more abundant in genes encoding membrane-bound proteins with many hydrophobic amino acids than in genes encoding soluble proteins, and 5) editing occurred most often in genes found to be under strong selective constraint.

conclusionThese analyses show that editing mostly affects functionally important and evolutionarily conserved codon positions, codons and genes encoding membrane-bound proteins. In particular, abundance of RNA editing in plant organellar genomes may be associated with disproportionately large percentages of genes in these two genomes that encode membrane-bound proteins, which are rich in hydrophobic amino acids and selectively constrained. These data support a hypothesis that natural selection imposed by protein functional constraints has contributed to selective fixation of certain editing sites and maintenance of the editing activity in plant organelles over a period of more than four hundred millions years. The retention of genes encoding RNA editing activity may be driven by forces that shape nucleotide composition equilibrium in two organellar genomes of these plants. Nevertheless, the causes of lineage-specific occurrence of a large portion of RNA editing sites remain to be determined.

Indexed as

Genetic DriftSelection, GeneticAmino AcidsBase SequenceCodonEvolution, MolecularGenes, PlantGenome, PlantHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsMembrane ProteinsMolecular WeightOrganellesPhylogenyPlant ProteinsRNA EditingThymineAmino AcidsCodonMembrane ProteinsPlant ProteinsThymine

Identifiers

PMID18939975
PMCPMC2584032
OpenAlexW2014469969

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.