Weak 5′-mRNA secondary structures in short eukaryotic genes

Genome Biology and Evolution

Volumn 4, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 1046-1053

  Ding, Yang ^a   Shah, Premal ^a   Plotkin, Joshua B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Codon bias; Gene length; Ribosome density; Translation initiation

Indexed keywords

EUKARYOTA;

MESSENGER RNA;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; CODON; CONFORMATION; DNA SEQUENCE; EUKARYOTE; GENETICS; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; OPEN READING FRAME; RNA GENE; RNA TRANSLATION;

CODON; EUKARYOTA; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; GENES, RRNA; NUCLEIC ACID CONFORMATION; OPEN READING FRAMES; PEPTIDE CHAIN ELONGATION, TRANSLATIONAL; PEPTIDE CHAIN INITIATION, TRANSLATIONAL; RNA, MESSENGER; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, DNA;

EID: 84875082172     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17596653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evs082     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Altenhoff AM, Schneider A, Gonnet GH, Dessimoz C. 2011. OMA 2011: orthology inference among 1000 complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 39:D289-D294.
2. Andersson SG, Kurland CG. 1990. Codon preferences in free-living microorganisms. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 54:198-210.
3. Arava Y, Boas FE, Brown PO, Herschlag D. 2005. Dissecting eukaryotic translation and its control by ribosome density mapping. Nucleic Acids Res. 33:2421-2432.
4. Arava Y, et al. 2003. Genome-wide analysis ofmRNA translation profiles in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 100:3889-3894.
5. Bazzini AA, Lee MT, Giraldez AJ. 2012. Ribosome profiling shows that miR-430 reduces translation before causing mRNA decay in zebrafish. Science 336:233-237.
6. Bettany AJ, et al. 1989. 5′-secondary structure formation, in contrast to a short string of non-preferred codons, inhibits the translation of the pyruvate kinase mRNA in yeast. Yeast 5:187-198.
7. Branco-Price C, Kawaguchi R, Ferreira RB, Bailey-Serres J. 2005. Genome-wide analysis of transcript abundance and translation in Arabidopsis seedlings subjected to oxygen deprivation. Ann Bot. 96: 647-660.
8. Brar GA, et al. 2012. High-resolution view of the yeast meiotic program revealed by ribosome profiling. Science 335:552-557.
9. Bulmer M. 1991. The selection-mutation-drift theory of synonymous codon usage. Genetics 129:897-907.
10. Capon F, et al. 2004. A synonymous SNP of the corneodesmosin gene leads to increased mRNA stability and demonstrates association with psoriasis across diverse ethnic groups. Hum Mol Genet. 13: 2361-2368.
11. Cataldo L, Mastrangelo MA, Kleene KC. 1999. A quantitative sucrose gradient analysis of the translational activity of 18 mRNA species in testes from adult mice. Mol Hum Reprod. 5:206-213.
12. Chamary JV, Hurst LD. 2005. Evidence for selection on synonymous mutations affecting stability of mRNA secondary structure in mammals. Genome Biol. 6:R75.
13. Chamary JV, Parmley JL, Hurst LD. 2006. Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites in mammals. Nat Rev Genet. 7:98-108.
14. David L, et al. 2006. A high-resolution map of transcription in the yeast genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 103:5320-5325.
15. de Smit MH, van Duin J. 1990. Secondary structure of the ribosome binding site determines translational efficiency: a quantitative analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 87:7668-7672.
16. Duan J, et al. 2003. Synonymous mutations in the human dopamine receptor D2 (DRD2) affect mRNA stability and synthesis of the receptor. Hum Mol Genet. 12:205-216.
17. Duret L. 2002. Evolution of synonymous codon usage in metazoans. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 12:640-649.
18. Duret L, Mouchiroud D. 1999. Expression pattern and, surprisingly, gene length shape codon usage in Caenorhabditis, Drosophila, and Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 96:4482-4487.
19. Eisenberg E, Levanon EY. 2003. Human housekeeping genes are compact. Trends Genet. 19:362-365.
20. Eyre-Walker A. 1996. Synonymous codon bias is related to gene length in Escherichia coli: selection for translational accuracy? Mol Biol Evol. 13: 864-872.
21. Eyre-Walker A, Bulmer M. 1993. Reduced synonymous substitution rate at the start of enterobacterial genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 21: 4599-4603.
22. Goldman N, Yang Z. 1994. A codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA sequences. Mol Biol Evol. 11: 725-736.
23. Gu W, Zhou T, Wilke CO. 2010. A universal trend of reduced mRNA stability near the translation-initiation site in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. PLoS Comput Biol. 6:e1000664.
24. Guo H, Ingolia NT,Weissman JS, Bartel DP. 2010. Mammalian microRNAs predominantly act to decrease target mRNA levels. Nature 466: 835-840.
25. Hendrickson DG, et al. 2009. Concordant regulation of translation and mRNA abundance for hundreds of targets of a human microRNA. PLoS Biol. 7:e1000238.
26. Hershberg R, Petrov DA. 2008. Selection on codon bias. Annu Rev Genet. 42:287-299.
27. Hirsh AE, Fraser HB, Wall DP. 2005. Adjusting for selection on synonymous sites in estimates of evolutionary distance. Mol Biol Evol. 22: 174-177.
28. Hofacker IL, et al. 1994. Fast folding and comparison of RNA secondary structures. Monatshefte Chem. 125:167-188.
29. Hurowitz EH, Brown PO. 2003. Genome-wide analysis of mRNA lengths in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genome Biol. 5:R2.
30. Ingolia NT, Ghaemmaghami S, Newman JR, Weissman JS. 2009. Genome-wide analysis in vivo of translation with nucleotide resolution using ribosome profiling. Science 324:218-223.
31. Ingolia NT, Lareau LF, Weissman JS. 2011. Ribosome profiling of mouse embryonic stem cells reveals the complexity and dynamics of mammalian proteomes. Cell 147:789-802.
32. Jones E, Oliphant T, Pearu P. 2001. SciPy: open source scientific tools for Python.
33. Keller TE, Mis SD, Jia KE, Wilke CO. 2012. Reduced mRNA secondary-structure stability near the start codon indicates functional genes in prokaryotes. Genome Biol Evol. 4:80-88.
34. Kimchi-Sarfaty C, et al. 2007. A "silent" polymorphism in theMDR1 gene changes substrate specificity. Science 315:525-528.
35. Kimura M. 1977. Preponderance of synonymous changes as evidence for the neutral theory of molecular evolution. Nature 267: 275-276.
36. Kudla G, Murray AW, Tollervey D, Plotkin JB. 2009. Coding-sequence determinants of gene expression in Escherichia coli. Science 324: 255-258.
37. Lackner DH, et al. 2007. A network of multiple regulatory layers shapes gene expression in fission yeast. Mol Cell. 26:145-155.
38. Lacsina JR, LaMonte G, Nicchitta CV, Chi JT. 2011. Polysome profiling of the malaria parasite plasmodium falciparum. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 179:42-46.
39. Li GW, Oh E,Weissman JS. 2012. The anti-shine-dalgarno sequence drives translational pausing and codon choice in bacteria. Nature 484: 538-541.
40. Lin Z, Li WH. 2012. Evolution of 5′ untranslated region length and gene expression reprogramming in yeasts. Mol Biol Evol. 29:81-89.
41. McDonald JH, Kreitman M. 1991. Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature 351:652-654.
42. Muse SV, Gaut BS. 1994. A likelihood approach for comparing synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitution rates, with application to the chloroplast genome. Mol Biol Evol. 11: 715-724.
43. Oh E, et al. 2011. Selective ribosome profiling reveals the cotranslational chaperone action of trigger factor in vivo. Cell 147:1295-1308.
44. Penel S, et al. 2009. Databases of homologous gene families for comparative genomics. BMC Bioinformatics 10(Suppl 6):S3.
45. Plotkin JB, Kudla G. 2011. Synonymous but not the same: the causes and consequences of codon bias. Nat Rev Genet. 12:32-42.
46. Qin X, Ahn S, Speed TP, Rubin GM. 2007. Global analyses of mRNA translational control during early Drosophila embryogenesis. Genome Biol. 8:R63.
47. Rao YS, et al. 2010. Selection for the compactness of highly expressed genes in Gallus gallus. Biol Direct. 5:35.
48. Reid DW, Nicchitta CV. 2012. Primary role for endoplasmic reticulum-bound ribosomes in cellular translation identified by ribosome profiling. J Biol Chem. 287:5518-5527.
49. Reuveni S, Meilijson I, Kupiec M, Ruppin E, Tuller T. 2011. Genome-scale analysis of translation elongation with a ribosome flow model. PLoS Comput Biol. 7:e1002127.
50. Sawyer SA, Hartl DL. 1992. Population genetics of polymorphism and divergence. Genetics 132:1161-1176.
51. Shah P, Gilchrist MA. 2010. Effect of correlated tRNA abundances on translation errors and evolution of codon usage bias. PLoS Genet. 6: e1001128.
52. Shah P, GilchristMA. 2011. Explaining complex codon usage patterns with selection for translational efficiency, mutation bias, and genetic drift. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 108:10231-10236.
53. Sharp PM, Averof M, Lloyd AT, Matassi G, Peden JF. 1995. DNA sequence evolution: the sounds of silence. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 349:241-247.
54. Sharp PM, Emery LR, Zeng K. 2010. Forces that influence the evolution of codon bias. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365:1203-1212.
55. Sharp PM, Li WH. 1987. The codon adaptation index-a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. Nucleic Acids Res. 15:1281-1295.
56. Shen LX, Basilion JP, Stanton VP Jr. 1999. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms can cause different structural folds ofmRNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 96:7871-7876.
57. Sherman DJ, et al. 2009. Genolevures: protein families and synteny among complete hemiascomycetous yeast proteomes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 37:D550-D554.
58. Tuller T, Waldman YY, Kupiec M, Ruppin E. 2010. Translation efficiency is determined by both codon bias and folding energy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 107:3645-3650.
59. Tuller T, et al. 2010. An evolutionarily conservedmechanism for controlling the efficiency of protein translation. Cell 141:344-354.
60. Van Rossum G, Drake F. 2001. Python reference manual. VA: PythonLabs [cited March 2011]. Available at http://www.python.org.
61. Zhou T, Wilke CO. 2011. Reduced stability of mRNA secondary structure near the translation-initiation site in dsDNA viruses. BMC Evol Biol. 11:59.