2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.06.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of contextual bias around the translation initiation sites in plant genomes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
14
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
2
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Very recently, with the whole-genome data from many plant species, a similar survey was done using seven monocots and seven dicots. The most favorable context for translation initiation determined by comparisons with protein abundance was GCNAUGGC in monocots, AANAUGGC in dicots and GCNAUGGC in plants in general (Gupta et al, 2016).…”
Section: Leaky Scanningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Very recently, with the whole-genome data from many plant species, a similar survey was done using seven monocots and seven dicots. The most favorable context for translation initiation determined by comparisons with protein abundance was GCNAUGGC in monocots, AANAUGGC in dicots and GCNAUGGC in plants in general (Gupta et al, 2016).…”
Section: Leaky Scanningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whereas monocot mRNAs contain higher frequencies of À3G/+4G nucleotides, À3A/+4G are more frequent in dicot mRNAs. It should be pointed out that the 5 0 -UTRs of monocot mRNAs are GC-rich, whereas those of dicots are AU-rich sequences [31][32][33]40,41,43]. Moreover, we have noticed that, among the consensus sequences of the plant species here scrutinized, the À2M position is well conserved ( Table 2).…”
Section: Key Figurementioning
confidence: 73%
“…Within the supergroup Archaeplastida (Plantae), several species of green plants (land plants and green algae) have been analyzed (Table S3). They possess strong Kozak motifs as the consensus TIS context [31][32][33]36,[40][41][42][43]. The frequencies of TISs containing guanine at positions À3 and +4 were observed to be different between monocotyledon and dicotyledon mRNAs.…”
Section: Key Figurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Coding sequences of twelve fluorescent proteins selected were obtained from the following sources: mTurquoise2 (Goedhart et al, 2012), mTFP1 [GenBank accession number DQ676819.1, (Ai et al, 2006)], mClover3 (Bajar et al, 2016), mNeonGreen [GenBank accession number KC295282.1, (Shaner et al, 2013)], mCitrine (Griesbeck et al, 2001), mYPet [the monomerizing mutation A206K was introduced into the YPet sequence (Nguyen and Daugherty, 2005) to generate mYPet], mKOκ [7 amino acid mutations (K49E, P70V, K185E, K188E, S192D, S196G, L210Q) were introduced into the mKO sequence with GenBank accession number AB128821.1 to generate mKOκ, (Tsutsui et al, 2008)], tdTomato (Shaner et al, 2004), TagRFP-T [GenBank accession number EU582019.1, (Shaner et al, 2008)], mRuby3 (Bajar et al, 2016), mCardinal (Chu et al, 2014), mKate2 (Shcherbo et al, 2009). Prior to synthesis for GoldenGate cloning (Weber et al, 2011), coding sequences were modified such that the codon encoding valine at position 2 of each open reading frame was mutated to code for an alanine (GCG) to achieve a partial match to the Kozak consensus sequence used in monocots (Nakagawa et al, 2008; Joshi et al, 1997; Gupta et al, 2016), codon-optimized for rice using the codon optimization tool by Integrated DNA Technologies, and domesticated for the GoldenGate cloning system. Where relevant, the GFP cryptic intron (Haseloff et al, 1997) and potential intron sites identified by NetPlantGene Server (Hebsgaard et al, 1996) were neutralized.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%