2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.01.200
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Simple repeat evolution includes dramatic primary sequence changes that conserve folding potential

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Coding microsatellites may be subject to purifying selection as they might be important for protein structure and protein–protein interactions (Hancock and Simon 2005) or to indirect selection as a source of adaptive evolution (Wren et al 2000; Fondon and Garner 2004; Riley and Krieger 2009a). In 3′-UTRs, some microsatellites have been shown to be selected for their folding potential rather than their primary sequence (Riley et al 2007). Although it is not clear what the function of most nonexonic microsatellites is, there is clear evidence that at least some are acting as regulators of gene expression (Kashi and King 2006; Vinces et al 2009), suggesting that noncoding microsatellites could also be indirectly selected for mutability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Coding microsatellites may be subject to purifying selection as they might be important for protein structure and protein–protein interactions (Hancock and Simon 2005) or to indirect selection as a source of adaptive evolution (Wren et al 2000; Fondon and Garner 2004; Riley and Krieger 2009a). In 3′-UTRs, some microsatellites have been shown to be selected for their folding potential rather than their primary sequence (Riley et al 2007). Although it is not clear what the function of most nonexonic microsatellites is, there is clear evidence that at least some are acting as regulators of gene expression (Kashi and King 2006; Vinces et al 2009), suggesting that noncoding microsatellites could also be indirectly selected for mutability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, further investigation is needed to tease out structural changes among orthologous microsatellites, for example, how compound structures arise in genomes (Kofler et al 2008), whether there are motif changes (Riley et al 2007; Riley and Krieger 2009b), and whether there are interspecies and intraspecies variations in length and/or mutability (Laidlaw et al 2007; Kelkar et al 2008). Moreover, as a consequence of the complexity and heterogeneity of microsatellite mutational dynamics, there is to date no theoretical development to estimate the life expectancy, thus the turnover, of microsatellites above the species level (Stephan and Kim 1998).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One explanation for such a threshold level may be a selection pressure to retain stabile conformations. Such a selection pressure has been suggested to be important for preserving folding potential in repeated di-nucleotides [21,36] and tri-nucleotides [37]. In this respect, nothing is currently known for pentanucleotides.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mutation patterns may also depend on the genomic context such as the particular location on a chromosome and functional potential of the transcribed product [9,16-18], as well as the effectiveness of mismatch repair enzymes [19,20]. Moreover, mutation rates in microsatellites are also affected by stabilization patterns and potential secondary structures [13,21]. …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unlike repeats which disrupt the reading frame, and have a strong effect on replication and transcription stability[31], the tri-nucleotide repeats might be constrained in a different way. It seems that repeats located in the promoter region[32] have a stronger influence on transcription than do AARs, even those near the transcription start.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%