Big on Change, Small on Innovation: Evolutionary Consequences of RNA Sequence Duplication.

Clicks: 353
ID: 18732
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #2 of 6 articles by views in Journal of molecular evolution

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
The potential for biopolymers to evolve new structures has important consequences for their ability to optimize function and our attempts to reconstruct their evolutionary histories. Prior work with in vitro systems suggests that structural remodeling of RNA is difficult to achieve through the accumulation of point mutations or through recombination events. Sequence duplication may represent an alternative mechanism that can more readily lead to the evolution of new structures. Structural and sequence elements in many RNAs and proteins appear to be the products of duplication events, indicating that this mechanism plays a major role in molecular evolution. Despite the potential significance of this mechanism, little experimental data is available concerning the structural and evolutionary consequences of duplicating biopolymer sequences. To assess the structural consequences of sequence duplication on the evolution of RNA, we mutagenized an RNA sequence containing two copies of an ATP aptamer and subjected the resulting population to multiple in vitro evolution experiments. We identified multiple routes by which duplication, followed by the accumulation of functional point mutations, allowed our populations to sample two entirely different secondary structures. The two structures have no base pairs in common, but both structures contain two copies of the same ATP-binding motif. We do not observe the emergence of any other functional secondary structures beyond these two. Although this result suggests a limited capacity for duplication to support short-term functional innovation, major changes in secondary structure, like the one observed here, should be given careful consideration as they are likely to frustrate attempts to infer deep evolutionary histories of functional RNAs.
Reference Key
plebanek2019bigjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Plebanek, Andrew;Larnerd, Caleb;Popović, Milena;Wei, Chenyu;Pohorille, Andrew;Ditzler, Mark A;
Journal Journal of molecular evolution
Year 2019
DOI
10.1007/s00239-019-09906-3
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.