↓ Skip to main content

Expected and unexpected evolution of plant RNA editing factors CLB19, CRR28 and RARE1: retention of CLB19 despite a phylogenetically deep loss of its two known editing targets in Poaceae

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Expected and unexpected evolution of plant RNA editing factors CLB19, CRR28 and RARE1: retention of CLB19 despite a phylogenetically deep loss of its two known editing targets in Poaceae
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12862-018-1203-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anke Hein, Volker Knoop

Abstract

C-to-U RNA editing in mitochondria and chloroplasts and the nuclear-encoded, RNA-binding PPR proteins acting as editing factors present a wide field of co-evolution between the different genetic systems in a plant cell. Recent studies on chloroplast editing factors RARE1 and CRR28 addressing one or two chloroplast editing sites, respectively, found them strictly conserved among 65 flowering plants as long as one of their RNA editing targets remained present. Extending the earlier sampling to 117 angiosperms with high-quality genome or transcriptome data, we find more evidence confirming previous conclusions but now also identify cases for expected evolutionary transition states such as retention of RARE1 despite loss of its editing target or the degeneration of CRR28 truncating its carboxyterminal DYW domain. The extended angiosperm set was now used to explore CLB19, an "E+"-type PPR editing factor targeting two chloroplast editing sites, rpoAeU200SF and clpPeU559HY, in Arabidopsis thaliana. We found CLB19 consistently conserved if one of the two targets was retained and three independent losses of CLB19 after elimination of both targets. The Ericales show independent regains of the ancestrally lost clpPeU559HY editing, further explaining why multiple-target editing factors are lost much more rarely than single target factors like RARE1. The retention of CLB19 despite loss of both editing targets in some Ericaceae, Apocynaceae and in Camptotheca (Nyssaceae) likely represents evolutionary transitions. However, the retention of CLB19 after a phylogenetic deep loss in the Poaceae rather suggests a yet unrecognized further editing target, for which we suggest editing event ndhAeU473SL. Extending the scope of studies on plant organelle RNA editing to further taxa and additional nuclear cofactors reveals expected evolutionary transitions, strikingly different evolutionary dynamics for multiple-target editing factors like CLB19 and CRR28 and suggests additional functions for editing factor CLB19 among the Poaceae.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 30%
Researcher 4 15%
Professor 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 30%
Chemical Engineering 1 4%
Linguistics 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#2,818
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,063
of 342,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#54
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.