ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2020
Readthrough Errors Purge Deleterious Cryptic Sequences, Facilitating the Birth of Coding Sequences.
Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost of Altered Translation Accuracy Shapes Adaptation to Antibiotics in E. coli.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Emergence of antiphage functions from random sequence libraries reveals mechanisms of gene birth.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The hidden bacterial microproteome.Molecular cell · 2025Article
- The Cryptic Bacterial Microproteome.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Alternative Reading Frames are an Underappreciated Source of Protein Sequence Novelty.Journal of molecular evolution · 2023Review
- De novo birth of functional microproteins in the human lineage.Cell reports · 2022Article
- Random peptides rich in small and disorder-promoting amino acids are less likely to be harmful.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Non-Darwinian Molecular Biology.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- The Boggarts of biology: how non-genetic changes influence the genotype.Current genetics · 2021Review
- Effective Population Size Predicts Local Rates but Not Local Mitigation of Read-through Errors.Molecular biology and evolution · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
De novo protein-coding innovations sometimes emerge from ancestrally noncoding DNA, despite the expectation that translating random sequences is overwhelmingly likely to be deleterious. The "preadapting selection" hypothesis claims that emergence is facilitated by prior, low-level translation of noncoding sequences via molecular errors. It predicts that selection on polypeptides translated only in error is strong enough to matter and is strongest when erroneous expression is high. To test this hypothesis, we examined noncoding sequences located downstream of stop codons (i.e., those potentially translated by readthrough errors) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae genes. We identified a class of "fragile" proteins under strong selection to reduce readthrough, which are unlikely substrates for co-option. Among the remainder, sequences showing evidence of readthrough translation, as assessed by ribosome profiling, encoded C-terminal extensions with higher intrinsic structural disorder, supporting the preadapting selection hypothesis. The cryptic sequences beyond the stop codon, rather than spillover effects from the regular C-termini, are primarily responsible for the higher disorder. Results are robust to controlling for the fact that stronger selection also reduces the length of C-terminal extensions. These findings indicate that selection acts on 3' UTRs in Saccharomyces cerevisiae to purge potentially deleterious variants of cryptic polypeptides, acting more strongly in genes that experience more readthrough errors.
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.