ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2024
New comparative genomic evidence supporting the proteomic diversification role of A-to-I RNA editing in insects.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2024. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- On the origin, evolution, and maintenance of RNA editing.Nucleic acids research · 2025Review
- Signal peptides restrict genome evolution and A-to-I RNA editing.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Accurate interpretation of inosines in RNAs: recognized as G is more than basepairing with C.Epigenomics · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative genomic analyses on assassin bugiScience · 2024Article
- Article
- An orthology-based methodology as a complementary approach to retrieve evolutionarily conserved A-to-I RNA editing sites.RNA biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) RNA editing, resembling A-to-G mutation, confers adaptiveness by increasing proteomic diversity in a temporal-spatial manner. This evolutionary theory named "proteomic diversifying hypothesis" has only partially been tested in very few organisms like Drosophila melanogaster, mainly by observing the positive selection on nonsynonymous editing events. To find additional genome-wide evidences supporting this interesting assumption, we retrieved the genomes of four Drosophila species and collected 20 deep-sequenced transcriptomes of different developmental stages and neuron populations of D. melanogaster. We systematically profiled the RNA editomes in these samples and performed meticulous comparative genomic analyses. Further evidences were found to support the diversifying hypothesis. (1) None of the nonsynonymous editing sites in D. melanogaster had ancestral G-alleles, while the silent editing sites had an unignorable fraction of ancestral G-alleles; (2) Only very few nonsynonymous editing sites in D. melanogaster had corresponding G-alleles derived in the genomes of sibling species, and the fraction of such situation was significantly lower than that of silent editing sites; (3) The few nonsynonymous editing with corresponding G-alleles had significantly more variable editing levels (across samples) than other nonsynonymous editing sites in D. melanogaster. The proteomic diversifying nature of RNA editing in Drosophila excludes the restorative role which favors an ancestral G-allele. The few fixed G-alleles in sibling species might facilitate the adaptation to particular environment and the corresponding nonsynonymous editing in D. melanogaster would introduce stronger advantage of flexible proteomic diversification. With multi-Omics data, our study consolidates the nature of evolutionary significance of A-to-I RNA editing sites in model insects.
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.