ArticlePlant molecular biology1998
Editing site recognition in plant mitochondria: the importance of 5'-flanking sequences.
Article in Plant molecular biology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- RNA editing site recognition in heterologous plant mitochondria.Current genetics · 2006Article
- Genetic algorithm learning as a robust approach to RNA editing site prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2006Article
- Simple statistical models predict C-to-U edited sites in plant mitochondrial RNA.BMC bioinformatics · 2004Article
- Different patterns in the recognition of editing sites in plant mitochondria.Nucleic acids research · 2004Article
- Electroporation of isolated higher-plant mitochondria: transcripts of an introduced cox2 gene, but not an atp6 gene, are edited in organello.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2003Article
- Cross-competition in transgenic chloroplasts expressing single editing sites reveals shared cis elements.Molecular and cellular biology · 2002Article
- cis Recognition elements in plant mitochondrion RNA editing.Molecular and cellular biology · 2001Article
- Higher plant mitochondriaThe Plant cell · 1999Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cytidine to uridine (C-to-U) editing occurs in plant mitochondria with very high specificity such that only specific cytidines are converted to uridines. The mechanisms for editing site selection in plant mitochondria are unknown. In order to examine the determinants of editing site recognition, repeated mitochondrial DNA sequences that include edited nucleotides have been evaluated as editing substrates. During evolution the maize mitochondrial ribosomal protein subunit 12 (rps12) gene recombined with intron 1 of the ribosomal protein subunit 3 (rps3) gene and a region of the S1-like sequence of the 2.3 kb plasmid. These recombinations created a second copy of an internal portion of the rps12 gene, known as rps12b, which includes the first four editing sites of rps12 transcripts. The duplicated sequence extends seven nucleotides upstream of editing site 1 and six nucleotides downstream from editing site 4. The sequences of rps12 and rps12b are identical between these sites except for a single change at -5 from editing site 1. These modifications did not effect C-to-U conversion at editing sites 2, 3, or 4 in rps12b; however, no editing was detected at editing site 1 in rps12b cDNAs. Thus, the 5' recombination abolished editing at site I, while the 3' recombination modified the downstream RNA sequence, but did not effect editing at site IV. Secondary structure prediction suggests that changes in editing site recognition do not correlate with differences in secondary structures, and that primary RNA sequence may be responsible for editing site specification.
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.