ArticleRNA (New York, N.Y.)2023
Chloroplast C-to-U RNA editing in vascular plants is adaptive due to its restorative effect: testing the restorative hypothesis.
Article in RNA (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 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
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- A-to-I mRNA editing: Why not simply incorporate inosine during mRNA synthesis?Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Deciphering APOBEC1 in Avians: unravelling loss events and functional insights.Immunogenetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Different mRNAs encoding identical proteins: how and why?Journal of applied genetics · 2026Article
- Comparative chloroplast genomics of sixFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Fascination with RNA Editing: In the Lights of Evolution and Biology.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Review
- On the origin, evolution, and maintenance of RNA editing.Nucleic acids research · 2025Review
- Signal peptides restrict genome evolution and A-to-I RNA editing.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
- An Ultimate Question for Functional A-to-I mRNA Editing: Why Not a Genomic G?Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Review
- Systematic revelation and meditation on the significance of long exons using representative eukaryotic genomes.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Comparative genomic analyses reveal evidence for adaptive A-to-I RNA editing in insectEpigenetics · 2024Article
- Article
- Narrowing down the candidates of beneficial A-to-I RNA editing by comparing the recoding sites with uneditable counterparts.Nucleus (Austin, Tex.) · 2024Article
- Phylogenomics and plastome evolution of Lithospermeae (Boraginaceae).BMC plant biology · 2024Article
- Convergent evolution of allele-specific gene expression that leads to non-small cell lung cancer in different human populations.Journal of applied genetics · 2024Article
- Adaptive evolution of A-to-I auto-editing site in Adar of eusocial insects.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Comparative genomic analyses on assassin bugiScience · 2024Article
- Chloroplast genomes of Eriobotrya elliptica and an unknown wild loquat "YN-1".Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Learning from the Codon Table: Convergent Recoding Provides Novel Understanding on the Evolution of A-to-I RNA Editing.Journal of molecular evolution · 2024Article
- Fitness difference between two synonymous mutations of Phytophthora infestans ATP6 gene.BMC ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The adaptiveness of nonsynonymous RNA editing (recoding) could be conferred by the flexibility of the temporal-spatially controllable proteomic diversity, or by its restorative effect which fixes unfavorable genomic mutations at the RNA level. These two complementary hypotheses, namely, the diversifying hypothesis and the restorative hypothesis, have distinct predictions on the landscape of RNA editing sites. We collected the chloroplast C-to-U RNA editomes of 21 vascular plants (11 angiosperms, four gymnosperms, and six ferns) from a previous study, aiming to testify whether the plant editomes typically conform to the restorative hypothesis. All predictions made by the restorative hypothesis are verified: (i) nonsynonymous editing sites are more frequent and have higher editing levels than synonymous sites; (ii) nonsynonymous editing levels are extremely high and show weak tissue-specificity in plants; (iii) on the inferred genomic sites with recent T-to-C mutations, nonsynonymous sites but not synonymous sites are compensated by C-to-U RNA editing. In conclusion, nonsynonymous C-to-U RNA editing in plants is adaptive due to its restorative effects. The recoding levels are high and are constantly required across the whole plant so that the recoding events could perfectly mimic DNA mutations. The evolutionary significance of plant RNA editing is systematically demonstrated at the genome-wide level.
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.