ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2015
Species-specific exon loss in human transcriptomes.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The splice of life: how alternative splicing shapes regulatory and phenotypic evolution.The EMBO journal · 2026Review
- Highly dynamic transcriptional reprogramming and shorter isoform shifts under acute stresses during biological invasions.RNA biology · 2021Article
- Sequence and Evolutionary Features for the Alternatively Spliced Exons of Eukaryotic Genes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Systematic Computational Identification of Variants That Activate Exonic and Intronic Cryptic Splice Sites.American journal of human genetics · 2017Article
- SMN expression is required in motor neurons to rescue electrophysiological deficits in the SMNΔ7 mouse model of SMA.Human molecular genetics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Changes in exon-intron structures and splicing patterns represent an important mechanism for the evolution of gene functions and species-specific regulatory networks. Although exon creation is widespread during primate and human evolution and has been studied extensively, much less is known about the scope and potential impact of human-specific exon loss events. Historically, transcriptome data and exon annotations are significantly biased toward humans over nonhuman primates. This ascertainment bias makes it challenging to discover human-specific exon loss events. We carried out a transcriptome-wide search of human-specific exon loss events, by taking advantage of RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) as a powerful and unbiased tool for exon discovery and annotation. Using RNA-seq data of humans, chimpanzees, and other primates, we reconstructed and compared transcript structures across the primate phylogeny. We discovered 33 candidate human-specific exon loss events, among which six exons passed stringent experimental filters for the complete loss of splicing activities in diverse human tissues. These events may result from human-specific deletion of genomic DNA, or small-scale sequence changes that inactivated splicing signals. The impact of human-specific exon loss events is predominantly regulatory. Three of the six events occurred in the 5' untranslated region (5'-UTR) and affected cis-regulatory elements of mRNA translation. In SLC7A6, a gene encoding an amino acid transporter, luciferase reporter assays suggested that both a human-specific exon loss event and an independent human-specific single nucleotide substitution in the 5'-UTR increased mRNA translational efficiency. Our study provides novel insights into the molecular mechanisms and evolutionary consequences of exon loss during human evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.