ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Upstream open reading frames may contain hundreds of novel human exons.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. 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.
- Emergence and evolution of protein-coding de novo genes.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Annotating genomes at increased scale and resolution.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- An expanded reference catalog of translated open reading frames for biomedical research.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Evolutionary Balancing of Genetic Consequence and Innovation in Mammals Through Variable Number Tandem Repeats.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Review
- Unlocking the secrets of the immunopeptidome: MHC molecules, ncRNA peptides, and vesicles in immune response.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several recent studies have presented evidence that the human gene catalogue should be expanded to include thousands of short open reading frames (ORFs) appearing upstream or downstream of existing protein-coding genes, each of which might create an additional bicistronic transcript in humans. Here we explore an alternative hypothesis that would explain the translational and evolutionary evidence for these upstream ORFs without the need to create novel genes or bicistronic transcripts. We examined 2,199 upstream ORFs that have been proposed as high-quality candidates for novel genes, to determine if they could instead represent protein-coding exons that can be added to existing genes. We checked for the conservation of these ORFs in four recently sequenced, high-quality human genomes, and found a large majority (87.8%) to be conserved in all four as expected. We then looked for splicing evidence that would connect each upstream ORF to the downstream protein-coding gene at the same locus, thus creating a novel splicing variant using the upstream ORF as its first exon. These protein coding exon candidates were further evaluated using protein structure predictions of the protein sequences that included the proposed new exons. We determined that 541 out of 2,199 upstream ORFs have strong evidence that they can form protein coding exons that are part of an existing gene, and that the resulting protein is predicted to have similar or better structural quality than the currently annotated isoform.
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.