ArticleNucleic acids research2022
Widespread autogenous mRNA-protein interactions detected by CLIP-seq.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relating transcriptomics to protein abundance reveals self-driven versus interactor-driven proteins.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- RNA-binding protein transcripts reflect composition of target mRNAs.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Article
- LncRNA-Protein Interactions: A Key to Deciphering LncRNA Mechanisms.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Coding relationship links RNA G-quadruplexes and protein RGG motifs in RNA-binding protein autoregulation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- RNA: The Unsuspected Conductor in the Orchestra of Macromolecular Crowding.Chemical reviews · 2024Review
- Ordering events in a developing genetic code.RNA biology · 2024Article
- Emerging roles of RNA binding proteins in intervertebral disc degeneration and osteoarthritis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Review
- The Genetic Code Assembles via Division and Fusion, Basic Cellular Events.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Autogenous interactions between mRNAs and the proteins they encode are implicated in cellular feedback-loop regulation, but their extent and mechanistic foundation are unclear. It was recently hypothesized that such interactions may be common, reflecting the role of intrinsic nucleobase-amino acid affinities in shaping the genetic code's structure. Here we analyze a comprehensive set of CLIP-seq experiments involving multiple protocols and report on widespread autogenous interactions across different organisms. Specifically, 230 of 341 (67%) studied RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) interact with their own mRNAs, with a heavy enrichment among high-confidence hits and a preference for coding sequence binding. We account for different confounding variables, including physical (overexpression and proximity during translation), methodological (difference in CLIP protocols, peak callers and cell types) and statistical (treatment of null backgrounds). In particular, we demonstrate a high statistical significance of autogenous interactions by sampling null distributions of fixed-margin interaction matrices. Furthermore, we study the dependence of autogenous binding on the presence of RNA-binding motifs and structured domains in RBPs. Finally, we show that intrinsic nucleobase-amino acid affinities favor co-aligned binding between mRNA coding regions and the proteins they encode. Our results suggest a central role for autogenous interactions in RBP regulation and support the possibility of a fundamental connection between coding and binding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.