2010
DOI: 10.1261/rna.2017210
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting in vivo binding sites of RNA-binding proteins using mRNA secondary structure

Abstract: While many RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) bind RNA in a sequence-specific manner, their sequence preferences alone do not distinguish known target RNAs from other potential targets that are coexpressed and contain the same sequence motifs. Recently, the mRNA targets of dozens of RNA-binding proteins have been identified, facilitating a systematic study of the features of target transcripts. Using these data, we demonstrate that calculating the predicted structural accessibility of a putative RBP binding site allo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
173
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 158 publications
(181 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
7
173
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown in Figure 2G, site accessibility was a stronger predictor of HuR binding when using DO-RIP-seq than for our previous HuR PAR-CLIP data (Friedersdorf and Keene 2014). This finding corroborates previous studies in concluding that HuR binds to specific sequences in unstructured regions of RNA (Meisner et al 2004;Li et al 2010). Taken together, these data show that increased sequence coverage allows for the unique ability of DO-RIP-seq to identify most of the strong binding sites, and thus also identify meaningful nonbound sites as demonstrated by the presence of local secondary structure surrounding nonbound sites.…”
Section: Saturation Of Binding Definitively Confirms That Hur Binds Usupporting
confidence: 90%
“…As shown in Figure 2G, site accessibility was a stronger predictor of HuR binding when using DO-RIP-seq than for our previous HuR PAR-CLIP data (Friedersdorf and Keene 2014). This finding corroborates previous studies in concluding that HuR binds to specific sequences in unstructured regions of RNA (Meisner et al 2004;Li et al 2010). Taken together, these data show that increased sequence coverage allows for the unique ability of DO-RIP-seq to identify most of the strong binding sites, and thus also identify meaningful nonbound sites as demonstrated by the presence of local secondary structure surrounding nonbound sites.…”
Section: Saturation Of Binding Definitively Confirms That Hur Binds Usupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Nucleotide accessibility in the RNA secondary structure was calculated using RNAplfold (Bernhart et al 2006), which averages over all the sliding windows of size W to compute the probability of a nucleotide being unpaired with a maximal span of L nucleotides. In these experiments, we used W = 80 and L = 40, which were previously adopted for predicting siRNA and RBP binding (Tafer et al 2008;Li et al 2010). We used RNAplfold over other RNA folding programs because of its capability of robustly computing the local base-pairing probabilities without predefining the exact position of sequence window.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is also possible that an RNA binding protein may recognize MEM2 in G. gynandra bundle sheath cells. PUF proteins recognize cis-elements present in mRNA that are typically within 39 UTRs, of a similar size to MEM2, and are dependent on secondary structure (Tadauchi et al, 2001;Francischini and Quaggio, 2009;Li et al, 2010b;Filipovska et al, 2011). However, PUF proteins typically recognize a sequence beginning with 59 UGUR (whereby R represents A or G) (Lu et al, 2009), which is not part of the conserved MEM2 sequence or directly upstream in any of the MEM2-containing UTRs.…”
Section: Distinct C 4 Pathway Enzymes Share a Common Regulatormentioning
confidence: 99%