Broad genomic and transcriptional analysis reveals a highly derived genome in dinoflagellate mitochondria

Jackson, Christopher J.; Norman, John E.; Schnare, Murray N.; Gray, Michael W.; Keeling, Patrick J.; Waller, Ross F.

doi:10.1186/1741-7007-5-41

Cited by 71 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A similar level of editing was found for the chloroplast transcripts in another dinoflagellate, Lingulodinium polyedrum (Wang and Morse, 2006), but another dinoflagellate, Amphidinium operculatum, did not show any evidence of editing (Barbrook et al, 2001). Substitutional editing is even more common in dinoflagellate mitochondrial transcripts (Lin et al, 2002;Zhang and Lin, 2005;Jackson et al, 2007;. Editing in both types of dinoflagellate organelles is similar: many types of base transition and transversion exist, with A-to-G editing the most frequent.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Substitutional editing of Heterocapsa triquetra chloroplast transcripts and a folding model for its divergent chloroplast 16S rRNA

Dang

Green

2009

Gene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 63%

Substitutional editing of Heterocapsa triquetra chloroplast transcripts and a folding model for its divergent chloroplast 16S rRNA

Dang

Green

2009

Gene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Even more purine exchanges were found in both directions and additionally, the transversions of both purine nucleotides into cytidines and, in the case of the 16S rRNA, of a uridine into a guanosine. As expected, the many types of editing were also identified in other dinoflagellates [237,[240][241][242] but interestingly not in Oxyrrhis marina representing a very basal lineage [243]. The transition types of editing (A-to-G, C-to-U) dominate in both organelles, possibly accompanied by a superset of U-to-R and R-to-C transversions (Table 1).…”

Section: : the Dinoflagellate Cases-weird Editing In Weird Mitochmentioning

confidence: 58%

When you can’t trust the DNA: RNA editing changes transcript sequences

Knoop¹

2010

Cell. Mol. Life Sci.

176

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RNA editing describes targeted sequence alterations in RNAs so that the transcript sequences differ from their DNA template. Since the original discovery of RNA editing in trypanosomes nearly 25 years ago more than a dozen such processes of nucleotide insertions, deletions, and exchanges have been identified in evolutionarily widely separated groups of the living world including plants, animals, fungi, protists, bacteria, and viruses. In many cases gene expression in mitochondria is affected, but RNA editing also takes place in chloroplasts and in nucleocytosolic genetic environments. While some RNA editing systems largely seem to repair defect genes (cryptogenes), others have obvious functions in modulating gene activities. The present review aims for an overview on the current states of research in the different systems of RNA editing by following a historic timeline along the respective original discoveries.

show abstract

“…fragments, and substantial noncoding regions, and some have been shown to have structurally complex ends characterized by families of repeats (37,38,45).…”

Section: The Mitochondrion: Rna Editing and Genome Breakdownmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cascades of convergent evolution: The corresponding evolutionary histories of euglenozoans and dinoflagellates

Lukeš

Leander

Keeling

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The majority of eukaryotic diversity is hidden in protists, yet our current knowledge of processes and structures in the eukaryotic cell is almost exclusively derived from multicellular organisms. The increasing sensitivity of molecular methods and growing interest in microeukaryotes has only recently demonstrated that many features so far considered to be universal for eukaryotes actually exist in strikingly different versions. In other words, during their long evolutionary histories, protists have solved general biological problems in many more ways than previously appreciated. Interestingly, some groups have broken more rules than others, and the Euglenozoa and the Alveolata stand out in this respect. A review of the numerous odd features in these 2 groups allows us to draw attention to the high level of convergent evolution in protists, which perhaps reflects the limits that certain features can be altered. Moreover, the appearance of one deviation in an ancestor can constrain the set of possible downstream deviations in its descendents, so features that might be independent functionally, can still be evolutionarily linked. What functional advantage may be conferred by the excessive complexity of euglenozoan and alveolate gene expression, organellar genome structure, and RNA editing and processing has been thoroughly debated, but we suggest these are more likely the products of constructive neutral evolution, and as such do not necessarily confer any selective advantage at all. mitochondria ͉ plastids ͉ comparative genomics ͉ molecular evolution ͉ Trypanosoma

show abstract

Broad genomic and transcriptional analysis reveals a highly derived genome in dinoflagellate mitochondria

Cited by 71 publications

References 63 publications

Substitutional editing of Heterocapsa triquetra chloroplast transcripts and a folding model for its divergent chloroplast 16S rRNA

Substitutional editing of Heterocapsa triquetra chloroplast transcripts and a folding model for its divergent chloroplast 16S rRNA

When you can’t trust the DNA: RNA editing changes transcript sequences

Cascades of convergent evolution: The corresponding evolutionary histories of euglenozoans and dinoflagellates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About