Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31515285›Full record

ArticleGenome research2019

A-to-I RNA editing contributes to the persistence of predicted damaging mutations in populations.

Te-Lun Mai, Trees-Juen Chuang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Te-Lun MaiGenomics Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taipei 11529, Taiwan.
Trees-Juen ChuangGenomics Research Center, Academia Sinica, Taipei 11529, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) RNA editing is a very common co-/posttranscriptional modification that can lead to A-to-G changes at the RNA level and compensate for G-to-A genomic changes to a certain extent. It has been shown that each healthy individual can carry dozens of missense variants predicted to be severely deleterious. Why strongly detrimental variants are preserved in a population and not eliminated by negative natural selection remains mostly unclear. Here, we ask if RNA editing correlates with the burden of deleterious A/G polymorphisms in a population. Integrating genome and transcriptome sequencing data from 447 human lymphoblastoid cell lines, we show that nonsynonymous editing activities (prevalence/level) are negatively correlated with the deleteriousness of A-to-G genomic changes and positively correlated with that of G-to-A genomic changes within the population. We find a significantly negative correlation between nonsynonymous editing activities and allele frequency of A within the population. This negative editing-allele frequency correlation is particularly strong when editing sites are located in highly important genes/loci. Examinations of deleterious missense variants from the 1000 Genomes Project further show a significantly higher proportion of rare missense mutations for G-to-A changes than for other types of changes. The proportion for G-to-A changes increases with increasing deleterious effects of the changes. Moreover, the deleteriousness of G-to-A changes is significantly positively correlated with the percentage of editing enzyme binding motifs at the variants. Overall, we show that nonsynonymous editing is associated with the increased burden of G-to-A missense mutations in healthy individuals, expanding RNA editing in pathogenomics studies.

Indexed as

Mutation, MissenseRNA EditingAdenosineGene FrequencyHumansInosineRNAAdenosineInosineRNA

Identifiers

PMID31515285
PMCPMC6836733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.