Computational identification of Drosophila microRNA genes

By Eric C. Lai, Pavel Tomancak, Robert W. Williams, Gerald M. Rubin. Genome Biology, 2003

820 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundMicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a large family of 21-22 nucleotide non-coding RNAs with presumed post-transcriptional regulatory activity. Most miRNAs were identified by direct cloning of small RNAs, an approach that favors detection of abundant miRNAs. Three observations suggested that miRNA genes might be identified using a computational approach. First, miRNAs generally derive from precursor transcripts of 70-100 nucleotides with extended stem-loop structure. Second, miRNAs are usually highly conserved between the genomes of related species. Third, miRNAs display a characteristic pattern of evolutionary divergence.ResultsWe developed an informatic procedure called 'miRseeker', which analyzed the completed euchromatic sequences of Drosophila melanogaster and D. pseudoobscura for conserved sequences that adopt an extended stem-loop structure and display a pattern of nucleotide divergence characteristic of known miRNAs. The sensitivity of this computational procedure was demonstrated by the presence of 75% (18/24) of previously identified Drosophila miRNAs within the top 124 candidates. In total, we identified 48 novel miRNA candidates that were strongly conserved in more distant insect, nematode, or vertebrate genomes. We verified expression for a total of 24 novel miRNA genes, including 20 of 27 candidates conserved in a third species and 4 of 11 high-scoring, Drosophila-specific candidates. Our analyses lead us to estimate that drosophilid genomes contain around 110 miRNA genes.ConclusionsOur computational strategy succeeded in identifying bona fide miRNA genes and suggests that miRNAs constitute nearly 1% of predicted protein-coding genes in Drosophila, a percentage similar to the percentage of miRNAs recently attributed to other metazoan genomes.

Subfields: Cancer Research, Molecular Biology, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/61f9b76ff4fdb87cc179a216786e188e9ae7699f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cancer Research

  1. David P. Bartel
  2. Phillip D. Zamore
  3. Nikolaus Rajewsky
  4. V. Narry Kim
  5. Eric C. Lai
  6. T. Du
  7. Alexander Stark
  8. Thomas Tuschl

In Molecular Biology

  1. David P. Bartel
  2. Phillip D. Zamore
  3. Nikolaus Rajewsky
  4. V. Narry Kim
  5. Gregory J. Hannon
  6. Thomas Tuschl
  7. Alexander Stark
  8. Eric C. Lai

In Plant Science

  1. David P. Bartel
  2. Phillip D. Zamore
  3. Jian‐Kang Zhu
  4. Ramanjulu Sunkar
  5. B. Bartel
  6. M. Jones-Rhoades
  7. Gregory J. Hannon
  8. Nikolaus Rajewsky

Citations in the corpus