Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23762347›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Improved computational target site prediction for pentatricopeptide repeat RNA editing factors.

Mizuki Takenaka, Anja Zehrmann, Axel Brennicke, Knut Graichen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

103 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A rapid and efficient in planta assay for assessment of RNA editing factor performance.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Generalized AI View of Tricopeptide Repeats: What's in a Name.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. A Comprehensive Analysis of Auxin Response Factor Gene Family inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Mizuki TakenakaMolekulare Botanik, Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany. mizuki.takenaka@uni-ulm.de
Anja Zehrmann
Axel Brennicke
Knut Graichen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pentatricopeptide repeat (PPR) proteins with an E domain have been identified as specific factors for C to U RNA editing in plant organelles. These PPR proteins bind to a unique sequence motif 5' of their target editing sites. Recently, involvement of a combinatorial amino acid code in the P (normal length) and S type (short) PPR domains in sequence specific RNA binding was reported. PPR proteins involved in RNA editing, however, contain not only P and S motifs but also their long variants L (long) and L2 (long2) and the S2 (short2) motifs. We now find that inclusion of these motifs improves the prediction of RNA editing target sites. Previously overlooked RNA editing target sites are suggested from the PPR motif structures of known E-class PPR proteins and are experimentally verified. RNA editing target sites are assigned for the novel PPR protein MEF32 (mitochondrial editing factor 32) and are confirmed in the cDNA.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, PlantRNA EditingAlgorithmsAmino Acid MotifsArabidopsisArabidopsis ProteinsBase SequenceComputer SimulationMolecular Sequence DataProtein IsoformsRNA-Binding ProteinsArabidopsis Proteinspentatricopeptide repeat protein, ArabidopsisProtein IsoformsRNA-Binding Proteins

Identifiers

PMID23762347
PMCPMC3675099

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.