Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28916985›Full record

ArticleBotanical studies2017

Whole plastid transcriptomes reveal abundant RNA editing sites and differential editing status in Phalaenopsis aphrodite subsp. formosana.

Ting-Chieh Chen, Yu-Chang Liu, Xuewen Wang, Chi-Hsuan Wu, Chih-Hao Huang, Ching-Chun Chang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Botanical studies, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Structural divergence and molecular adaptation ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  3. Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  4. Backbone phylogeny and adaptive evolution ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  5. RNA Editing in Chloroplast: Advancements and Opportunities.Current issues in molecular biology · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Organelle Genomes and Transcriptomes ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ting-Chieh ChenInstitute of Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 701, Taiwan.
Yu-Chang LiuInstitute of Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 701, Taiwan.
Xuewen WangDepartment of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.
Chi-Hsuan WuInstitute of Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 701, Taiwan.
Chih-Hao HuangInstitute of Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 701, Taiwan.
Ching-Chun ChangInstitute of Biotechnology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, 701, Taiwan. chingcc@mail.ncku.edu.tw.
National Cheng Kung University · TWUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRNA editing is a process of post-transcriptional level of gene regulation by nucleotide modification. Previously, the chloroplast DNA of Taiwan endemic moth orchid, P. aphrodite subsp. formosana was determined, and 44 RNA editing sites were identified from 24 plastid protein-coding transcripts of leaf tissue via RT-PCR and then conventional Sanger sequencing. However, the RNA editing status of whole-plastid transcripts in leaf and other distinct tissue types in moth orchids has not been addressed. To sensitively and extensively examine the plastid RNA editing status of moth orchid, RNA-Seq was used to investigate the editing status of whole-plastid transcripts from leaf and floral tissues by mapping the sequence reads to the corresponding cpDNA template. With the threshold of at least 5% C-to-U or U-to-C conversion events observed in sequence reads considered as RNA editing sites.

resultsIn total, 137 edits with 126 C-to-U and 11 U-to-C conversions, including 93 newly discovered edits, were identified in plastid transcripts, representing an average of 0.09% of the nucleotides examined in moth orchid. Overall, 110 and 106 edits were present in leaf and floral tissues, respectively, with 79 edits in common. As well, 79 edits were involved in protein-coding transcripts, and the 58 nucleotide conversions caused the non-synonymous substitution. At least 32 edits showed significant (≧20%) differential editing between leaf and floral tissues. Finally, RNA editing in trnM is required for the formation of a standard clover-leaf structure.

conclusionsWe identified 137 edits in plastid transcripts of moth orchid, the highest number reported so far in monocots. The consequence of RNA editing in protein-coding transcripts mainly cause the amino acid change and tend to increase the hydrophobicity as well as conservation among plant phylogeny. RNA editing occurred in non-protein-coding transcripts such as tRNA, introns and untranslated regulatory regions could affect the formation and stability of secondary structure, which might play an important role in the regulation of gene expression. Furthermore, some unidentified tissue-specific factors might be required for regulating RNA editing in moth orchid.

Indexed as

Moth orchidsPhalaenopsis aphroditePlastid gene expressionPlastidsRNA editing

Identifiers

PMID28916985
PMCPMC5602750
OpenAlexW2755432874

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.