ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2018
An Evaluation of Function of Multicopy Noncoding RNAs in Mammals Using ENCODE/FANTOM Data and Comparative Genomics.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pervasive Transcription in the Human Genome Exceeds Background Noise.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Review on LncRNAs/miRNAs-DNMT1 Axis in Human Cancer: Mechanistic and Clinical Application.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Systematic computational hunting for small RNAs derived from ncRNAs during dengue virus infection in endothelial HMEC-1 cells.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- SnoRNA copy regulation affects family size, genomic location and family abundance levels.BMC genomics · 2021Article
- Emerging role of tumor-related functional peptides encoded by lncRNA and circRNA.Molecular cancer · 2020Review
- The cellular landscape of mid-size noncoding RNA.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. RNA · 2019Review
- Role of circular RNAs in cardiovascular diseases.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2019Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mammalian diversification has coincided with a rapid proliferation of various types of noncoding RNAs, including members of both snRNAs and snoRNAs. The significance of this expansion however remains obscure. While some ncRNA copy-number expansions have been linked to functionally tractable effects, such events may equally likely be neutral, perhaps as a result of random retrotransposition. Hindering progress in our understanding of such observations is the difficulty in establishing function for the diverse features that have been identified in our own genome. Projects such as ENCODE and FANTOM have revealed a hidden world of genomic expression patterns, as well as a host of other potential indicators of biological function. However, such projects have been criticized, particularly from practitioners in the field of molecular evolution, where many suspect these data provide limited insight into biological function. The molecular evolution community has largely taken a skeptical view, thus it is important to establish tests of function. We use a range of data, including data drawn from ENCODE and FANTOM, to examine the case for function for the recent copy number expansion in mammals of six evolutionarily ancient RNA families involved in splicing and rRNA maturation. We use several criteria to assess evidence for function: conservation of sequence and structure, genomic synteny, evidence for transposition, and evidence for species-specific expression. Applying these criteria, we find that only a minority of loci show strong evidence for function and that, for the majority, we cannot reject the null hypothesis of no function.
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.