ArticleJournal of evolutionary biology2025
Can transcriptome size and off-target effects explain the contrasting evolution of mitochondrial vs nuclear RNA editing?
Article in Journal of evolutionary biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- High Conservation of Translation-Enabling RNA Editing Sites in Hyper-editing Ferns Implies They Are Not Selectively Neutral.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Mitochondrial RNA editing has evolved independently in numerous eukaryotic lineages, where it generally restores conserved sequences and functional reading frames in mRNA transcripts derived from altered or disrupted mitochondrial protein-coding genes. In contrast to this "restorative" RNA editing in mitochondria, most editing of nuclear mRNAs introduces novel sequence variants and diversifies the proteome. This Perspective addresses the hypothesis that these completely opposite effects of mitochondrial vs. nuclear RNA editing arise from the enormous difference in gene number between the respective genomes. Because mitochondria produce a much smaller transcriptome, they likely create less opportunity for off-target editing, which has been supported by recent experimental work expressing mitochondrial RNA editing machinery in foreign contexts. In addition, there is recent evidence that the size and complexity of RNA targets may slow the kinetics and reduce efficiency of on-target RNA editing. These findings suggest that efficient targeting and a low risk of off-target editing have facilitated the repeated emergence of disrupted mitochondrial genes and associated restorative RNA editing systems via (potentially non-adaptive) evolutionary pathways that are not feasible in larger nuclear transcriptomes due to lack of precision.
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.