2000
DOI: 10.1017/s1355838200990708
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Coupled nucleotide covariations reveal dynamic RNA interaction patterns

Abstract: Evolutionarily conserved structures in related RNA molecules contain coordinated variations (covariations) of paired nucleotides. Analysis of covariations is a very powerful approach to deduce phylogenetically conserved (i.e., functional) conformations, including tertiary interactions. Here we discuss conserved RNA folding pathways that are revealed by covariation patterns. In such pathways, structural requirements for alternative pairings cause some nucleotides to covary with two different partners. Such "cou… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In total, we scored 619× U and only 40× C for residue 31 when there is an A at position 22 (A22-U40 base pair), and only 3× U and 58× C when a G is present at position 22 (G22-U40 and G22-C40 base pairs). Such a coupled covariation between the residues at positions 22, 31, and 40 is indicative of either an alternative secondary structure in which the residues interact as mutually exclusive base pairs or of a base triple interaction (Gultyaev et al 2000). Using the Mfold program, we found no evidence for alternative secondary structures of TAR in which residues 22 and 31 interact directly (Zuker 1989;Mathews et al 1999;Zuker and Turner 1999).…”
Section: Comparative Sequence Analysis Suggests the Existence Of A Bamentioning
confidence: 79%
“…In total, we scored 619× U and only 40× C for residue 31 when there is an A at position 22 (A22-U40 base pair), and only 3× U and 58× C when a G is present at position 22 (G22-U40 and G22-C40 base pairs). Such a coupled covariation between the residues at positions 22, 31, and 40 is indicative of either an alternative secondary structure in which the residues interact as mutually exclusive base pairs or of a base triple interaction (Gultyaev et al 2000). Using the Mfold program, we found no evidence for alternative secondary structures of TAR in which residues 22 and 31 interact directly (Zuker 1989;Mathews et al 1999;Zuker and Turner 1999).…”
Section: Comparative Sequence Analysis Suggests the Existence Of A Bamentioning
confidence: 79%
“…The existence of a few genetically homogeneous genetic groups suggests that the sequence space of these viruses may be restricted to a few narrow peaks in the adaptive or fitness landscape (Wright, 1932). A high level of covariation at molecular level (the coordinated change of certain nucleotides in response to the change of other nucleotides to maintain biologically relevant structures and functions) could explain this discontinuous adaptive landscape (Gultyaev et al, 2000). Reduced fitness of chimeras between CTV strains from different genetic subgroups occupying distinct adaptive peaks (Satyanarayana et al, 1999) support this notion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The coupled covariation pattern involving more than two bases (Fig. 2) is an indicator of a fine-tuned conformational transition (Gultyaev et al, 2000), and multiple examples of functionally important cotranscriptional RNA folding are known (Lai et al, 2013). Functional interchangeability of tetraloop types is usually explained by their exceptional stabilities (Sahu et al, 2012;Selinger et al, 1993;Uhlenbeck, 1990;Woese et al, 1990).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%