Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Heredity logoLink to Heredity
. 2023 Sep 15;132(3):156–161. doi: 10.1038/s41437-023-00650-5

Mitochondrially mediated RNA interference, a retrograde signaling system affecting nuclear gene expression

Federico Plazzi 1,✉, Youn Le Cras 1,2, Alessandro Formaggioni 1, Marco Passamonti 1
PMCID: PMC10923801  PMID: 37714959

Abstract

Several functional classes of short noncoding RNAs are involved in manifold regulatory processes in eukaryotes, including, among the best characterized, miRNAs. One of the most intriguing regulatory networks in the eukaryotic cell is the mito-nuclear crosstalk: recently, miRNA-like elements of mitochondrial origin, called smithRNAs, were detected in a bivalve species, Ruditapes philippinarum. These RNA molecules originate in the organelle but were shown in vivo to regulate nuclear genes. Since miRNA genes evolve easily de novo with respect to protein-coding genes, in the present work we estimate the probability with which a newly arisen smithRNA finds a suitable target in the nuclear transcriptome. Simulations with transcriptomes of 12 bivalve species suggest that this probability is high and not species specific: one in a hundred million (1 × 10−8) if five mismatches between the smithRNA and the 3’ mRNA are allowed, yet many more are allowed in animals. We propose that novel smithRNAs may easily evolve as exaptation of the pre-existing mitochondrial RNAs. In turn, the ability of evolving novel smithRNAs may have played a pivotal role in mito-nuclear interactions during animal evolution, including the intriguing possibility of acting as speciation trigger.

Subject terms: Molecular evolution, Evolutionary genetics, Transcriptomics, RNAi, Gene regulation

RNA-silencing pathways

Besides well-known ribosomal, messenger, and transfer RNAs, many short and long RNA types are known from the cell cytoplasm. Among short noncoding RNAs (sncRNAs), small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and microRNAs (miRNAs) play a pivotal role in the regulation of eukaryotic cytoplasmic translation, and involve a DICER-related protein and an Argonaute-related protein (Shabalina and Koonin 2008; Ghildiyal and Zamore 2009; Auyeung et al. 2013; Fang and Bartel 2015; Michlewski and Cáceres 2019). DICER proteins are required to process the immature RNA transcript to its functional form (Bernstein et al. 2001; Bartel 2018), while Argonaute proteins load the mature sncRNA and take part in the repression of the target transcripts (Bartel 2009; O’Brien et al. 2018).

Primary siRNAs are generally produced from exogenous double-stranded RNAs; conversely, primary miRNAs are transcribed from specific genomic loci (for instance, Ghildiyal et al. 2008; O’Brien et al. 2018; and references therein). However, this distinction is blurred since siRNAs have been documented arising from selfish elements integrated into the genome (Yang and Kazazian 2006; Chen et al. 2012), hairpins or endogenous double-stranded RNAs (Czech et al. 2008; Kawamura et al. 2008; Okamura et al. 2008; Tam et al. 2008; Watanabe et al. 2008; Ghildiyal and Zamore 2009). Moreover, siRNAs involve a complete base pairing with the target mRNA, whereas miRNAs may show more flexible complementarity to their targets. This is the case of metazoans, where a short sequence at the 5’ of the mature miRNA, called the “seed”, is crucial in the interaction with mRNAs (Shabalina and Koonin 2008; Ghildiyal and Zamore 2009; Bofill-De Ros et al. 2020).

The ancestral forms of RNAi most likely worked as defense mechanisms against viruses and transposons (Li and Ding 2005; Matzke and Birchler 2005). However, alternative hypotheses have been put forward. RNA-mediated gene silencing and suppression of exogenous or selfish elements may have been an exaptation after the evolution of an RNA machinery used for centromere assembly and proper formation of telomeres during eukaryogenesis (Cavalier-Smith 2010). Alternatively, a qualitative system drift has been proposed for RNAi, starting from the prokaryotic antisense RNA gene regulation mechanism (Torri et al. 2022).

It is commonly accepted that the last eukaryotic common ancestor possessed a proto-RNAi mechanism (Cerutti and Casas-Mollano 2006; Shabalina and Koonin 2008; Moran et al. 2017; Bråte et al. 2018; Velandia-Huerto et al. 2022); moreover, it is increasingly clear that miRNAs arose multiple times among eukaryotes, exploiting the same ancient RNAi components (Moran et al. 2017; Yazbeck et al. 2017; Bråte et al. 2018; Velandia-Huerto et al. 2022; but see Poole et al. 2014). Conversely, miRNAs and their hairpin precursors have been shown to be highly conserved within eukaryotic supergroups (Hertel and Stadler 2015; Yazbeck et al. 2017; Velandia-Huerto et al. 2022).

In metazoans, hundreds of conserved miRNA families have been identified (for instance, Yazbeck et al. 2017; Velandia-Huerto et al. 2022). If confirmed by the growing knowledge about miRNAs in non-model species, this would mean that the expansion of miRNA families in the kingdom is coincidental with, if not associated with, the diversification of body plans and ultimately the evolution of bilaterians (Hertel and Stadler 2015; Dexheimer and Cochella 2020; Desvignes et al. 2021; Ma et al. 2021). However, multicellular organisms are particularly prone to the evolution of complex regulatory networks by neutral processes, and the evolution of miRNAs in animals may not be adaptive at its roots (Lynch 2007).

To date, there is virtually no eukaryotic cell phenomenon that has not been shown to be regulated by miRNAs, from stress response (Larriba and del Mazo 2016; Riggs et al. 2018) to biomineralization (van Wijnen et al. 2013; Jiao et al. 2014), from immunity (Chen et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2018) to development and aging (Yekta et al. 2008; Kim and Lee 2019).

Retrograde signaling through RNA regulation: smithRNAs

The mitochondrion-to-nucleus communication is typically referred to as “retrograde signaling” or “mitochondrial retrograde response” (MRR; Ovciarikova et al. 2022), because it was always clear that the nucleus ought to regulate mitochondria in the eukaryotic cell, but the reverse regulatory function was not immediately understood. MRR may be mediated by cholesterol, reactive oxygen species and Ca2+ at nucleus-mitochondrion contact sites (Connelly et al. 2021). However, there are short RNAs (Maniataki and Mourelatos 2005; Weber-Lofti and Dietrich 2018), long noncoding RNAs (Vendramin et al. 2017; Weber-Lofti and Dietrich 2018), and peptides (Lee et al. 2013; Cohen 2014) of mitochondrial origin that have been proposed to interact with the nucleus.

Recently, it has been shown that sncRNAs with some similarities with miRNAs are involved in MRR as well; they were termed small mitochondrial highly expressed RNAs (smithRNAs) and were originally found in the Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum (Pozzi et al. 2017). Small RNAs were already known from animal mitochondria (e.g., Mercer et al. 2011; Ro et al. 2013; Bottje et al. 2017; Riggs et al. 2018), but they had always been associated with mitochondrial targets (Mercer et al. 2011; Ro et al. 2013; Bottje et al. 2017). Conversely, smithRNAs are transcribed from the mitochondrial genome, but they regulate nuclear targets by definition. The complementarity of a small region of the sncRNA with the 3’ UTR of target messengers was shown to be a good predictor of regulated target genes (Pozzi et al. 2017; Passamonti et al. 2020).

The original in silico prediction of smithRNAs was subsequently confirmed by in vivo experiments, which also showed that smithRNAs can affect the epigenetic status of the nuclear genome by regulating histone methylation/acetylation (Passamonti et al. 2020). Finally, far from being a bivalve oddity, smithRNAs were suggested to be present in distantly related bilaterians (Passamonti et al. 2020). Notably, putative mitochondrial noncoding RNAs have also been found in Arabidopsis thaliana (Marker et al. 2002), as well as in other plants (Weber-Lofti and Dietrich 2018).

As most sncRNAs, smithRNAs may well be genetic elements that commonly arise de novo during evolution (Velandia-Huerto et al. 2022; and references therein). Duplication, reshuffling, transposition, retrotransposition, chimeric phenomena account for most new genes (Andersson et al. 2015; Schlotterer 2015; VanKuren and Long 2018; Zhao et al. 2021), but small noncoding loci like miRNAs may represent the most common source of de novo genes (Lu et al. 2008b; Lyu et al. 2014; Zhao et al. 2021). Most miRNAs arising de novo are probably functionless (Lu et al. 2008b; Berezikov et al. 2010) or even dead-on-arrival (Petrov et al. 1996; Petrov and Hartl 1998), but many may become adaptive miRNAs (Lu et al. 2008a; Mohammed et al. 2014, 2018, Lyu et al. 2014; Zhao et al. 2021).

Therefore, it can be stated that (i) at least some smithRNAs are miRNA-like molecules, structurally simple and requiring flexible base pairing to nuclear targets; (ii) at least some smithRNAs exert significant and broad-scope effects on the associated nuclear genome; (iii) smithRNAs may be widespread among animals and may have been present in the metazoan common ancestor; (iv) miRNA-like elements can easily evolve de novo, be conserved as adaptive traits, or be swept away by natural selection. Therefore, a fundamental evolutionary question arises: how common is the emergence of new smithRNAs and of novel smithRNA functions?

Target availability

As stated, at least some smithRNAs behave as animal miRNAs and require only partial pairing with 3’ UTRs of target nuclear messengers. Namely, the extended seed region required to basepair and regulate the target encompasses nucleotides 1–8 of the mature miRNA molecule (Bartel 2009; McGeary et al. 2019). Although cases of alternative and noncanonical pairing sites are known (see Tan et al. 2014; Bartel 2018; McGeary et al. 2019; Bofill-De Ros et al. 2020; Rissland 2020; Komatsu et al. 2023; and reference therein), a handful of nucleotides are anyway involved in target regulation.

To provide a rough estimate of the probability of a random sequence behaving as a miRNA-like regulatory element for a transcript within the same organism, we generated 189,339,429 random pri-miRNA-like sequences using custom-tailored Python scripts. The pri-miRNA is the canonical primary transcript of a miRNA element: it will be cleaved by the protein DROSHA within the nucleus at specific sites associated with its secondary structure, producing the pre-miRNA. As described above, the pre-miRNA will be cleaved by DICER in the cytoplasm to produce the functional molecule (Ghildiyal and Zamore 2009; García-López et al. 2013; Ha and Kim 2014; Bartel 2018; and reference therein). Sequences were randomly generated following the canonical pri-miRNA structure detailed in Bartel (2018): all sequences were then matured in silico, respecting the sites of DROSHA and DICER cleavage (see Ha and Kim 2014; Bartel 2018).

Since functional smithRNAs have been demonstrated in vivo in the Manila clam only (Passamonti et al. 2020), we assembled transcriptomes from 12 bivalve species for which transcriptome data are available on GenBank: Ruditapes decussatus (SRR527757); Arctica islandica (SRR1559269); Galeomma turtoni (SRR1560274); Sphaerium nucleus (SRR1561723); Laternula elliptica (SRR1687084); Lyonsia floridana (SRR1560310); Margaritifera margaritifera (SRR1560312); Arca noae (SRR1559268); Mytilus edulis (SRR1560431); Placopecten magellanicus (SRR1560445); Solemya velum (SRR330465); Yoldia eightsii (SRR3205073).

Transcriptomes were curated using the software FastQC (Andrews 2010), Trimmomatic (Bolger et al. 2014), BUSCO (Simão et al. 2015), and Trinity (Grabherr et al. 2011; Haas et al. 2013). The software Kraken2 (Wood et al. 2019) was used to classify potential contaminants of human and prokaryotic origin, using a custom-assembled database of prokaryotic sequences updated to June 2019. Peptide detection on noisy matured sequences was carried out with FrameDP (Gouzy et al. 2009), and 3’ UTRs were predicted using ExUTR (Huang and Teeling 2017) and the invertebrate dataset of 3’ UTRs.

In silico-matured RNAs were mapped onto assembled transcriptomes using Bowtie (Langmead et al. 2009), using the minus strand of the Bowtie index and requiring at least a perfect match between the 3’ UTR and nucleotides 2–8 of the simulated miRNA-like element, thus conservatively restricting the analysis to “canonical” targeting only. Scripts, commands, and settings are available by YLC and AF upon request.

The number of simulated miRNA-like elements able to find targets in the transcriptome was normalized over the number of k-mers (k = 22 nucleotides) available in the 3’ UTRs of the focal transcriptome: the result was divided by 189,339,429 (the number of random pri-miRNAs) to get an estimate of the probability for a single miRNA-like element to find a suitable target in a given k-mer.

The probability for a random pri-miRNA-like sequence to result in a mature miRNA having a target on a transcriptome is exponentially linked to the number of mismatches outside the seed region, irrespective of the species the transcriptome is obtained from (Fig. 1). Specifically, this probability is approximately one in a hundred million (1 × 10−8) if exactly five mismatches between the mature miRNA-like molecule and a 3’ UTR are considered (provided that the seed basepairs perfectly).

Fig. 1. Frequency of miRNA-like simulated molecules that found at least one suitable target on 3’ UTRs of a given species.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The seed was conservatively defined as nucleotides 2–8 of the miRNA; a match was accepted if it was perfect at the seed and if it included a maximum of 5 mismatches outside. An example of an alignment with three mismatches is included in the insert. The number of elements with an acceptable match was normalized on the number of 22-mers in the relative 3’ UTR set and divided by the number of simulated pri-miRNAs. The y-axis is log-transformed for the sake of readability. Regression line details: y = 1.0757x − 12.8616; R2 = 0.9719; ***P < 2 × 10−16.

Recall the large amount of replicating mitochondrial genomes in the germline, and the huge number of individuals and populations of these species, one in a hundred million should be regarded as a high chance for a de novo-arisen mitochondrial miRNA-like element to find a regulative target in the nuclear transcriptome of the same cell. Notably, this probability does not change across species, which means that it is independent of nuclear transcriptome features.

It is worth noting that we conservatively focused on the 2–8 eptamer seed pairing, but other types of seed pairing are conceivable, and, thus, this probability is largely underestimated. Moreover, more than five mismatches are normally allowed in miRNA-driven regulation in animals (Shabalina and Koonin 2008; Ghildiyal and Zamore 2009; Bofill-De Ros et al. 2020), thus again increasing the chances for a de novo mitochondrial miRNA-like element, since the decimal logarithm of probability is positively correlated with mismatches outside the seed (r = +0.9858; Fig. 1).

If this trend is confirmed outside bivalves, it will be tempting to conclude that the DNA chemistry and nucleotide composition of eukaryotes, as well as constraints on pri-miRNA structures, do result in a significant probability that a miRNA-like element finds a suitable nuclear target, after having originated merely by chance and random mutations on a mitochondrial genome.

Mitochondrial secondary structures are easily co-opted to deliver new functions

Obviously, the probability of a simulated sequence to match a 3’ UTR is not enough to state that smithRNA commonly arises de novo. A smithRNA is a sncRNA associated with a specific biogenesis pathway, which requires molecular signals for processing enzymes, such as secondary structures.

In the traditional view, the animal mitochondrial genome is believed to be small and compact, containing a conserved set of protein-coding genes associated with the mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) pathway (Boore 1999). However, recent research has shown that this may not always be the case, challenging the notion of ubiquitous features in metazoan mitochondrial genomics (Lavrov et al. 2013; Breton et al. 2014; Formaggioni et al. 2021). Actually, animal mitochondrial genomes are highly variable for what concerns genome architecture (Lavrov and Pett 2016); genome size (Pu et al. 2019; Hemmi et al. 2020); use of different genetic codes (Lavrov et al. 2013; Li et al. 2018); gene arrangement (Trindade Rosa et al. 2017; Pu et al. 2019; Hemmi et al. 2020; Monnens et al. 2020; Ghiselli et al. 2021; Kutyumov et al. 2021); doubly uniparental inheritance (DUI; Passamonti and Ghiselli 2009; Zouros and Rodakis 2019; Passamonti and Plazzi 2020); and post-transcriptional regulation (Osigus et al. 2017; Schuster et al. 2017).

The finetuning of some of these mechanisms (for instance, DUI, post-transcriptional regulation) and the origin of these features involves complex crosstalk with nuclear genomes, as well as the availability of regulatory sequences and signals along the mitochondrial genome (e.g., Ghiselli et al. 2013, 2021). For example, since mitochondrial DNA is normally transcribed as a single polycistron (e.g., Hillen et al. 2018), structural signals ought to be present to cleave single transcripts, which are normally found between protein-coding genes as tRNA genes or short noncoding regions with stem-and-loop secondary structures (e.g., Plazzi et al. 2013; Bettinazzi et al. 2016).

Therefore, mitochondrial genomics itself requires multiple secondary structures to regulate the organellar functions. Moreover, many of these structural sites are processing and cleavage signals, as is the case for protein-coding gene spacers, that are excised to separate single transcripts. These RNA hairpins are normally processed and degraded as part of the normal cellular turnover of macromolecules.

However, it is easy to speculate that a hairpin might survive being directly co-opted as pre-miRNA. It is sufficient that its secondary structure can be recognized by some DICER ortholog: hairpin structures that are normally found in cleavage signals are indeed very similar to hairpin structure normally shown by pre-miRNAs. In that case, the RNA would be cleaved and a miRNA would be produced skipping the pri-miRNA/DROSHA stage—and will find a suitable nuclear target one in a hundred million times, and probably more (as per our simulation above). Other examples of DROSHA-independent biogenesis of miRNAs are indeed known (Ruby et al. 2007; Babiarz et al. 2008; O’Brien et al. 2018).

Obviously, a hairpin excised within the mitochondrion must be delivered to the cytoplasm prior to the final, and in this case only, maturation step is driven by DICER. In fact, many studies found mitochondrial RNA outside the source organelle, which accounts for the possibility for RNA molecules to be exported. For example, several tRNAs of mitochondrial origin were found in the cytoplasm of human cells, even in association with Ago2, an Argonaute protein included in the formation of the functional complex involved in RNA silencing (Maniataki and Mourelatos 2005). Mitochondrially encoded RNAs can bind Ago2 as well (Pozzi and Dowling 2022), and long noncoding RNAs from the mitochondrion were also reported within the nucleus (Landerer et al. 2011; Rackham et al. 2011; Vendramin et al. 2017). Interestingly, mitochondria of R. philippinarum have been observed while releasing their content in the cytoplasm (Milani et al. 2011), which would be a straightforward mechanism for smithRNAs to enter cytoplasm, at least in this species.

RNAi driven by mitochondria might be a remnant of their origin as free-living, aerobic prokaryotes. Notably, the intracellular pathogen Mycobacterium marinum synthetize small, antisense regulatory RNAs, which are exported to the host cell and processed as if they were miRNAs (Furuse et al. 2014) and, generally speaking, many bacterial small RNAs show complex secondary structures (Wagner and Simons 1994). Indeed, a connection between small antisense regulatory RNAs in prokaryotes and the cytoplasmic proto-RNAi system in early eukaryotes has been suggested (Torri et al. 2022). In sum, we propose that smithRNAs arise as an exaptation at the molecular level of secondary structures that were always present in mitochondrial genomes, possibly since their origin as endosymbionts. Moreover, we also predict that this phenomenon might be more common than thought, given the similar selective constraints on hairpins.

Retrograde RNAi and mito-nuclear coadaptation

Mitochondrial and nuclear genomes must coevolve to provide efficient energy production (Hill 2019). The electron transport system of mitochondria (ETS), to which the efficiency of energy production through OXPHOS is strictly linked, is delivered by a complex assembly of nuclear and mitochondrial subunits that are forced to function together (Rand et al. 2004). An effective OXPHOS is achieved by three different mechanisms: (i) protein–protein interaction forming the ETS complexes (Phillips et al. 2010); (ii) protein–RNA/DNA interactions during transcription and translation of mitochondrial genes (Taanmann 1999; D’Souza and Minczuck 2018); and (iii) protein–DNA interaction in the replication of the mitochondrial genome (Clayton 2000).

In fact, speciation soon started to be discussed in the context of mito-nuclear coadaptation, as a mechanism that may easily evolve mito-nuclear incompatibilities (Dowling et al. 2008; Gershoni et al. 2009; Burton and Barreto 2012). Examples of these mito-nuclear incompatibilities are, for instance, available for Drosophila and Tigriopus copepods (see Hill 2019; and references therein).

Although the abovementioned system may suggest a strict need for mito-nuclear coadaptation, other systems point in the opposite direction. In bivalves with DUI, two mitochondrial genomes are transmitted to offspring in a sex-linked way (Passamonti and Ghiselli 2009; Zouros and Rodakis 2019; Passamonti and Plazzi 2020) and there is evidence of a functional assembly of the ETS with two, highly divergent sets of mitochondrial proteins. Therefore, the correct protein–protein interaction forming the ETS complexes is less strict than previously thought, at least in these bivalve mollusks.

The existence of mitochondrially mediated RNAi provides a fourth mechanism for the evolution of mito-nuclear incompatibilities, which can arise much faster than the other three. When a set of smithRNAs is adapted to regulate nuclear gene expression in a species, the system could easily produce genetic barriers with other species having a differently adapted smithRNA subset. To our knowledge, there is currently no study on this issue, but we strongly suggest that the cases of mito-nuclear incompatibilities may be reconsidered in light of the role of the mitochondrial genome in regulating nuclear gene expression. In this conception, smithRNAs (and maybe other MRR mechanisms) may represent classical Dobzhansky–Muller speciation triggers (Dobzhansky 1937; Muller 1942), which lead to the evolution of postzygotic genetic barriers.

Concluding remarks

Notwithstanding their recent discovery (Pozzi et al. 2017), it is likely that smithRNAs are not a peculiar feature of a single bivalve species: they are probably widespread among metazoans (Passamonti et al. 2020). This does not necessarily imply that they are phylogenetically related, nor that the origin of smithRNAs is a single event in evolutionary history. The peculiar features of mitochondrial genomes involve the possibility that smithRNAs spontaneously arose multiple times from the secondary structure repertoire that is normally available along the mitochondrial genome.

Therefore, it is important to characterize the smithRNA toolbox in as many animal species as possible, and functional studies are required to prove that smithRNAs are regulatory elements in vivo. This will increase the list of functions smithRNAs can exert in the cell; moreover, light will be shed on the evolutionary conservation of smithRNAs and on their multiple origins through molecular exaptation, both not mutually exclusive. Finally, if smithRNA precursors (or at least some of them) arise as an exaptation of ancient legacies from free-living bacteria, smithRNAs might be strictly connected with early eukaryogenesis.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research PRIN 2020 (2020BE2BC3) funded to MP. YLC was supported by EUR G.E.N.E. (reference #ANR-17-EURE-0013) and is part of the Université Paris Cité (IdEx #ANR-18-IDEX-0001), funded by the French Government through its “Investments for the Future” program. We are grateful to the people at the ESEB 2022 symposium “Beyond transcription: the role of post-transcriptional gene regulation in adaptation and evolution” for sharing ideas and suggestions. We also want to thank three anonymous reviewers, whose comments and criticism greatly improved the original manuscript.

Author contributions

FP and MP conceived and supervised the study. YLC and AF analyzed the data. FP and MP drafted the original manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data availability

All data used for the present study are publicly available in GenBank.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Andersson DI, Jerlstrom-Hultqvist J, Nasvall J. Evolution of new functions de novo and from preexisting genes. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2015;7:a017996. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a017996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews S (2010) FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/
  3. Auyeung VC, Ulitsky I, McGeary SE, Bartel DP. Beyond secondary structure: primary-sequence determinants license pri-miRNA hairpins for processing. Cell. 2013;152:844–858. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.01.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Babiarz JE, Ruby JG, Wang Y, Bartel DP, Blelloch R. Mouse ES cells express endogenous shRNAs, siRNAs, and other microprocessor-independent, dicer-dependent small RNAs. Genes Dev. 2008;22:2773–2785. doi: 10.1101/gad.1705308. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: target recognition and regulatory functions. Cell. 2009;136:215–233. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartel DP. Metazoan microRNAs. Cell. 2018;173:20–51. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Berezikov E, Liu N, Flynt AS, Hodges E, Rooks M, Hannon GJ, et al. Evolutionary flux of canonical microRNAs and mirtrons in Drosophila. Nat Genet. 2010;42:6–9. doi: 10.1038/ng0110-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernstein E, Caudy AA, Hammond SM, Hannon GJ. Role for a bidentate ribonuclease in the initiation step of RNA interference. Nature. 2001;409:363–366. doi: 10.1038/35053110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bettinazzi S, Plazzi F, Passamonti M. The complete female- and male-transmitted mitochondrial genome of Meretrix lamarckii. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0153631. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153631. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bofill-De Ros X, Yang A, Gu S. IsomiRs: expanding the miRNA repression toolbox beyond the seed. Biochim Biophys Acta Gene Regul Mech. 2020;1863:194373. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2019.03.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–2120. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Boore JL. Animal mitochondrial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 1999;27:1767–1780. doi: 10.1093/nar/27.8.1767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bottje WG, Khatri B, Shouse SA, Seo D, Mallmann B, Orlowski SK, et al. Identification and differential abundance of mitochondrial genome encoding small RNAs (mitosRNA) in breast muscles of modern broilers and unselected chicken breed. Front Physiol. 2017;8:816. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bråte J, Neumann RS, Fromm B, Haraldsen AAB, Tarver JE, Suga H, et al. Unicellular origin of the animal microRNA machinery. Curr Biol. 2018;28:3288–3295.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.08.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Breton S, Milani L, Ghiselli F, Guerra D, Stewart DT, Passamonti M. A resourceful genome: updating the functional repertoire and evolutionary role of animal mitochondrial DNAs. Trends Genet. 2014;30:555–564. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2014.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Burton RS, Barreto FS. A disproportionate role for mtDNA in Dobzhansky-Muller incompatibilities? Mol Ecol. 2012;21:4942–4957. doi: 10.1111/mec.12006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cavalier-Smith T. Origin of the cell nucleus, mitosis and sex: roles of intracellular coevolution. Biol Direct. 2010;5:7. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-5-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Cerutti H, Casas-Mollano JA. On the origin and functions of RNA-mediated silencing: from protists to man. Curr Genet. 2006;50:81–99. doi: 10.1007/s00294-006-0078-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen CZ, Schaffert S, Fragoso R, Loh C. Regulation of immune responses and tolerance: the microRNA perspective. Immunol Rev. 2013;253:112–128. doi: 10.1111/imr.12060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Chen L, Dahlstrom JE, Lee S-H, Rangasamy D. Naturally occurring endo-siRNA silences LINE-1 retrotransposons in human cells through DNA methylation. Epigenetics. 2012;7:758–771. doi: 10.4161/epi.20706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Clayton DA. Transcription and replication of mitochondrial DNA. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:11–17. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.suppl_2.11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Cohen P. New role for the mitochondrial peptide humanin: protective agent against chemotherapy-induced side effects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju006. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Connelly SV, Manzella-Lapeira J, Levine ZC, Brzostowski J, Krymskaya L, Rahman RS, et al. Restructured mitochondrial-nuclear interaction in Plasmodium falciparum dormancy and persister survival after artemisinin exposure. mBio. 2021;12:e00753–21. doi: 10.1128/mBio.00753-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Czech B, Malone CD, Zhou R, Stark A, Schlingeheyde C, Dus M, et al. An endogenous small interfering RNA pathway in Drosophila. Nature. 2008;453:798–802. doi: 10.1038/nature07007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. D’Souza AR, Minczuck M. Mitochondrial transcription and translation: overview. Ess Biochem. 2018;62:309–320. doi: 10.1042/EBC20170102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Desvignes T, Sydes J, Montfort J, Bobe J, Postlethwait JH. Evolution after whole-genome duplication: teleost microRNAs. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38:3308–3331. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dexheimer PJ, Cochella L. MicroRNAs: from mechanism to organism. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:409. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2020.00409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Dobzhansky T. Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press; 1937. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dowling DK, Friberg U, Lindell J. Evolutionary implication of non-neutral mitochondrial genetic variation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23:546–554. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.05.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Fang W, Bartel DP. The menu of features that define primary microRNAs and enable de novo design of microRNA genes. Mol Cell. 2015;60:131–145. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.08.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Formaggioni A, Luchetti A, Plazzi F. Mitochondrial genomic landscape: a portrait of the mitochondrial genome 40 years after the first complete sequence. Life. 2021;11:663. doi: 10.3390/life11070663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Furuse Y, Finethy R, Saka HA, Xet-Mull AM, Sisk DM, Smith KL, et al. Search for microRNAs expressed by intracellular bacterial pathogens in infected mammalian cells. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e106434. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. García-López J, Brieño-Enríquez MA, del Mazo J. MicroRNA biogenesis and variability. BioMol Concepts. 2013;4:367–380. doi: 10.1515/bmc-2013-0015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gershoni M, Templeton AR, Mishmar D. Mitochondrial bioenergetics as a major motive force of speciation. Bioessays. 2009;31:642–650. doi: 10.1002/bies.200800139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ghildiyal M, Seitz H, Horwich MD, Li C, Du T, Lee S, et al. Endogenous siRNAs derived from transposons and mRNAs in Drosophila somatic cells. Science. 2008;320:1077–1081. doi: 10.1126/science.1157396. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Ghildiyal M, Zamore PD. Small silencing RNAs: an expanding universe. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10:94–108. doi: 10.1038/nrg2504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Ghiselli F, Gomes-dos-Santos A, Adema CM, Lopes-Lima M, Sharbrough J, Boore JL. Molluscan mitochondrial genomes break the rules. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2021;376:20200159. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2020.0159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ghiselli F, Milani L, Guerra D, Chang PL, Breton S, Nuzhdin SV, et al. Structure, transcription, and variability of metazoan mitochondrial genome: perspectives from an unusual mitochondrial inheritance system. Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5:1535–1554. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evt112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Gouzy J, Carrere S, Schiex T. FrameDP: sensitive peptide detection on noisy matured sequences. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:670–671. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Grabherr MG, Haas BJ, Yassour M, Levin JZ, Thompson DA, Amit I, et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-seq data without a reference genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29:644–652. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1883. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Ha M, Kim VN. Regulation of microRNA biogenesis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2014;15:509–524. doi: 10.1038/nrm3838. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Haas BJ, Papanicolaou A, Yassour M, Grabherr M, Blood PD, Bowden J, et al. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat Protoc. 2013;8:1494–1512. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2013.084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Hemmi K, Kakehashi R, Kambayashi C, Du Preez L, Minter L, Furuno N, et al. Exceptional enlargement of the mitochondrial genome results from distinct causes in different rain frogs (Anura: Brevicipitidae: Breviceps) Int J Genomics. 2020;2020:6540343. doi: 10.1155/2020/6540343. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Hertel J, Stadler PF. The expansion of animal microRNA families revisited. Life (Basel) 2015;5:905–920. doi: 10.3390/life5010905. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Hill GE. Mitonuclear ecology. Oxford series in ecology and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hillen HS, Temiakov D, Cramer P. Structural basis of mitochondrial transcription. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2018;25:754–765. doi: 10.1038/s41594-018-0122-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Huang Z, Teeling EC. ExUTR: a novel pipeline for large-scale prediction of 3’-UTR sequences from NGS data. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:847. doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-4241-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jiao Y, Zheng Z, Du X, Wang Q, Huang R, Deng Y, et al. Identification and characterization of microRNAs in pearl oyster Pinctada martensii by solexa deep sequencing. Mar Biotechnol. 2014;16:54–62. doi: 10.1007/s10126-013-9528-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Kawamura Y, Saito K, Kin T, Ono Y, Asai K, Sunohara T, et al. Drosophila endogenous small RNAs bind to Argonaute 2 in somatic cells. Nature. 2008;453:793–797. doi: 10.1038/nature06938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Kim SS, Lee S-JV. Non-coding RNAs in Caenorhabditis elegans aging. Mol Cells. 2019;42:379–385. doi: 10.14348/molcells.2019.0077. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Komatsu S, Kitai H, Suzuki HI. Network regulation of microRNA biogenesis and target interaction. Cells. 2023;12:306. doi: 10.3390/cells12020306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Kutyumov VA, Predeus AV, Starunov VV, Maltseva AL, Ostrovsky AN. Mitochondrial gene order of the freshwater bryozoan Cristatella mucedo retains ancestral lophotrochozoan features. Mitochondrion. 2021;59:96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.mito.2021.02.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Landerer E, Villegas J, Burzio VA, Oliveira L, Villota C, Lopez C, et al. Nuclear localization of the mitochondrial ncRNAs in normal and cancer cells. Cell Oncol (Dordr) 2011;34:297–305. doi: 10.1007/s13402-011-0018-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Langmead B, Trapnell C, Pop M, Salzberg SL. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 2009;10:R25. doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Larriba E, del Mazo J. Role of non-coding RNAs in the transgenerational epigenetic transmission of the effects of reprotoxicants. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:452. doi: 10.3390/ijms17040452. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Lavrov D, Pett W. Animal mitochondrial DNA as we do not know it: mt-genome organization and evolution in nonbilaterian lineages. Genome Biol Evol. 2016;8:2896–2913. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evw195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Lavrov DV, Pett W, Voigt O, Wörheide G, Forget L, Lang BF, et al. Mitochondrial DNA of Clathrina clathrus (Calcarea, Calcinea): six linear chromosomes, fragmented rRNAs, tRNA editing, and a novel genetic code. Mol Biol Evol. 2013;30:865–880. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Lee C, Yen K, Cohen P. Humanin: a harbinger of mitochondrial-derived peptides? Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2013;24:222–228. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2013.01.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Li HW, Ding SW. Antiviral silencing in animals. FEBS Lett. 2005;579:5965–5973. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.08.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Li Y, Kocot KM, Tassia MG, Cannon JT, Bernt M, Halanych KM. Mitogenomics reveals a novel genetic code in hemichordata. Genome Biol Evol. 2018;11:29–40. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evy254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Lu J, Fu Y, Kumar S, Shen Y, Zeng K, Xu A, et al. Adaptive evolution of newly emerged micro-RNA genes in Drosophila. Mol Biol Evol. 2008;25:929–938. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msn040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Lu J, Shen Y, Wu Q, Kumar S, He B, Shi S, et al. The birth and death of microRNA genes in Drosophila. Nat Genet. 2008;40:351–355. doi: 10.1038/ng.73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Lynch M. The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes. Nat Rev Genet. 2007;8:803–813. doi: 10.1038/nrg2192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Lyu Y, Shen Y, Li H, Chen Y, Guo L, Zhao Y, et al. New microRNAs in Drosophila—birth, death and cycles of adaptive evolution. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004096. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Ma X, He K, Shi Z, Li M, Li F, Chen X-X. Large-scale annotation and evolution analysis of miRNA in insects. Genome Biol Evol. 2021;13:evab083. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evab083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Maniataki E, Mourelatos Z. Human mitochondrial tRNAMet is exported to the cytoplasm and associates with the Argonaute 2 protein. RNA. 2005;11:849–852. doi: 10.1261/rna.2210805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Marker C, Zemann A, Terhörst T, Kiefmann M, Kastenmayer JP, Green P, et al. Experimental RNomics: identification of 140 candidates for small non-messenger RNAs in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Curr Biol. 2002;12:2002–2013. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(02)01304-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Matzke MA, Birchler JA. RNAi-mediated pathways in the nucleus. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:24–35. doi: 10.1038/nrg1500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. McGeary SE, Lin KS, Shi CY, Pham TM, Bisaria N, Kelley GM, et al. The biochemical basis of microRNA targeting efficacy. Science. 2019;366:eaav1741. doi: 10.1126/science.aav1741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Mercer TR, Neph S, Dinger ME, Crawford J, Smith MA, Shearwood A-MJ, et al. The human mitochondrial transcriptome. Cell. 2011;146:645–658. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.06.051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Michlewski G, Cáceres JF. Post-transcriptional control of miRNA biogenesis. RNA. 2019;25:1–16. doi: 10.1261/rna.068692.118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Milani L, Ghiselli F, Maurizii MG, Passamonti M. Doubly uniparental inheritance of mitochondria as a model system for studying germ line formation. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e28194. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Mohammed J, Bortolamiol-Becet D, Flynt AS, Gronau I, Siepel A, Lai EC. Adaptive evolution of testis-specific, recently evolved, clustered miRNAs in Drosophila. RNA. 2014;20:1195–1209. doi: 10.1261/rna.044644.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Mohammed J, Flynt AS, Panzarino AM, Mondal MMH, DeCruz M, Siepel A, et al. Deep experimental profiling of microRNA diversity, deployment, and evolution across the Drosophila genus. Genome Res. 2018;28:52–65. doi: 10.1101/gr.226068.117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Monnens M, Thijs S, Briscoe AG, Clark M, Frost EJ, Littlewood DTJ, et al. The first mitochondrial genomes of endosymbiotic rhabdocoels illustrate evolutionary relaxation of atp8 and genome plasticity in flatworms. Int J Biol Macromol. 2020;162:454–469. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.06.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Moran Y, Agron M, Praher D, Technau U. The evolutionary origin of plant and animal microRNAs. Nat Ecol Evol. 2017;1:27. doi: 10.1038/s41559-016-0027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Muller HJ. Isolating mechanisms, evolution, and temperature. Biol Symp. 1942;6:71–125. [Google Scholar]
  78. O’Brien J, Hayder H, Zayed Y, Peng C. Overview of microRNA biogenesis, mechanisms of actions, and circulation. Front Endocrinol. 2018;9:402. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Okamura K, Chung W-J, Ruby JG, Guo H, Bartel DP, Lai EC. The Drosophila hairpin RNA pathway generates endogenous short interfering RNAs. Nature. 2008;453:803–806. doi: 10.1038/nature07015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Osigus H-J, Eitel M, Schierwater B. Deep RNA sequencing reveals the smallest known mitochondrial micro exon in animals: the placozoan cox1 single base pair exon. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0177959. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Ovciarikova J, Shikha S, Sheiner L. Nuclear interactions: a spotlight on nuclear mitochondrial membrane contact sites. Contact. 2022;5:1–7. doi: 10.1177/25152564221096217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Passamonti M, Calderone M, Delpero M, Plazzi F. Clues of in vivo nuclear gene regulation by mitochondrial short non-coding RNAs. Sci Rep. 2020;10:8219. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65084-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Passamonti M, Ghiselli F. Doubly uniparental inheritance: two mitochondrial genomes, one precious model for organelle DNA inheritance and evolution. DNA Cell Biol. 2009;28:79–89. doi: 10.1089/dna.2008.0807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Passamonti M, Plazzi F. Doubly uniparental inheritance and beyond: the contribution of the Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum. J Zool Syst Evol Res. 2020;58:529–540. doi: 10.1111/jzs.12371. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Petrov DA, Hartl DL. High rate of DNA loss in the Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila virilis species groups. Mol Biol Evol. 1998;15:293–302. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a025926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Petrov DA, Lozovskaya ER, Hartl DL. High intrinsic rate of DNA loss in Drosophila. Nature. 1996;384:346–349. doi: 10.1038/384346a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Phillips D, Reilley MJ, Aponte AM, Wang G, Boja E, Gucek M, et al. Stoichiometry of STAT3 and mitochondrial proteins: implications for the regulation of oxidative phosphorylation by protein-protein interactions. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:23532–23536. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C110.152652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Plazzi F, Ribani A, Passamonti M. The complete mitochondrial genome of Solemya velum (Mollusca: Bivalvia) and its relationships with Conchifera. BMC Genomics. 2013;14:409. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Poole CB, Gu W, Kumar S, Jin J, Davis PJ, Bauche D, et al. Diversity and expression of microRNAs in the filarial parasite, Brugia malayi. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e96498. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Pozzi A, Dowling DK. New insights into mitochondrial–nuclear interactions revealed through analysis of small RNAs. Genome Biol Evol. 2022;14:evac023. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evac023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Pozzi A, Plazzi F, Milani L, Ghiselli F, Passamonti M. SmithRNAs: could mitochondria “bend” nuclear regulation? Mol Biol Evol. 2017;34:1960–1973. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Pu L, Liu H, Wang G, Li B, Xia G, Shen M, et al. Complete mitochondrial genome of the cockle Anadara antiquata (Linnaeus, 1758) Mitochondrial DNA Part B Resour. 2019;4:2293–2294. doi: 10.1080/23802359.2019.1627931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Rackham O, Shearwood AM, Mercer TR, Davies SM, Mattick JS, Filipovska A. Long noncoding RNAs are generated from the mitochondrial genome and regulated by nuclear-encoded proteins. RNA. 2011;17:2085–2093. doi: 10.1261/rna.029405.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Rand DM, Hanley RA, Fry AJ. Cytonuclear coevolution: the genomics of cooperation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:645–653. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Riggs CL, Summers A, Warren DE, Nilsson GE, Lefevre S, Dowd WW, et al. Small non-coding RNA expression and vertebrate anoxia tolerance. Front Genet. 2018;9:230. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Rissland OS. Big insights into small RNAs. Biochemistry. 2020;59:1551–1552. doi: 10.1021/acs.biochem.0c00252. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Ro S, Ma H-Y, Park C, Ortogero N, Song R, Hennig GW, et al. The mitochondrial genome encodes abundant small noncoding RNAs. Cell Res. 2013;23:759–774. doi: 10.1038/cr.2013.37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Ruby JG, Jan CH, Bartel DP. Intronic microRNA precursors that bypass Drosha processing. Nature. 2007;448:83–86. doi: 10.1038/nature05983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Schlotterer C. Genes from scratch – the evolutionary fate of de novo genes. Trends Genet. 2015;31:215–219. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2015.02.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Schuster A, Lopez JV, Becking LE, Kelly M, Pomponi SA, Wörheide G, et al. Evolution of group I introns in Porifera: new evidence for intron mobility and implications for DNA barcoding. BMC Evol Biol. 2017;17:82. doi: 10.1186/s12862-017-0928-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Shabalina SA, Koonin EV. Origins and evolution of eukaryotic RNA interference. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008;23:P578–P587. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2008.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  102. Simão FA, Waterhouse RM, Ioannidis P, Kriventseva EV, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO: assessing genome assembly and annotation completeness with single-copy orthologs. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:3210–3212. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Taanmann JW. The mitochondrial genome: structure, transcription, translation and replication. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1999;1410:103–123. doi: 10.1016/S0005-2728(98)00161-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  104. Tam OH, Aravin AA, Stein P, Girard A, Murchison EP, Cheloufi S, et al. Pseudogene-derived small interfering RNAs regulate gene expression in mouse oocytes. Nature. 2008;453:534–538. doi: 10.1038/nature06904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  105. Tan GC, Chan E, Molnar A, Sarkar R, Alexieva D, Isa IM, et al. 5’ isomiR variation is of functional and evolutionary importance. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:9424–9435. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku656. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  106. Torri A, Jaeger J, Pradeu T, Saleh M-C. The origin of RNA interference: adaptive or neutral evolution? PLoS Biol. 2022;20:e3001715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  107. Trindade Rosa M, Oliveira DS, Loreto ELS. Characterization of the first mitochondrial genome of a catenulid flatworm: Stenostomum leucops (Platyhelminthes) J Zool Syst Evol Res. 2017;55:98–105. doi: 10.1111/jzs.12164. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. van Wijnen AJ, van de Peppel J, van Leeuwen JP, Lian JB, Stein GS, Westendorf JJ, et al. MicroRNA functions in osteogenesis and dysfunctions in osteoporosis. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2013;11:72–82. doi: 10.1007/s11914-013-0143-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. VanKuren NW, Long M. Gene duplicates resolving sexual conflict rapidly evolved essential gametogenesis functions. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2:705–712. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0471-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Velandia-Huerto CA, Yazbeck AM, Schor J, Stadler PF. Evolution and phylogeny of microRNAs – protocols, pitfalls, and problems. Methods Mol Biol. 2022;2257:211–233. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1170-8_11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Vendramin R, Marine JC, Leucci E. Non-coding RNAs: the dark side of nuclear-mitochondrial communication. EMBO J. 2017;36:1123–1133. doi: 10.15252/embj.201695546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  112. Wagner EG, Simons RW. Antisense RNA control in bacteria, phages, and plasmids. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1994;48:713–742. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.48.100194.003433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Wang M, Jiang S, Wu W, Yu F, Chang W, Li P, et al. Non-coding RNAs function as immune regulators in teleost fish. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2801. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  114. Watanabe T, Totoki Y, Toyoda A, Kaneda M, Kuramochi-Miyagawa S, Obata Y, et al. Endogenous siRNAs from naturally formed dsRNAs regulate transcripts in mouse oocytes. Nature. 2008;453:539–543. doi: 10.1038/nature06908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  115. Weber-Lotfi F, Dietrich A. Intercompartment RNA trafficking in mitochondrial function and communication. In: Cruz-Reyes J, Gray M, editors. RNA metabolism in mitochondria. nucleic acids and molecular biology 34. Cham: Springer; 2018. pp. 73–124. [Google Scholar]
  116. Wood DE, Lu J, Langmead B. Improved metagenomic analysis with Kraken 2. Genome Biol. 2019;20:257. doi: 10.1186/s13059-019-1891-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  117. Yang N, Kazazian HH., Jr L1 retrotransposition is suppressed by endogenously encoded small interfering RNAs in human cultured cells. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2006;13:763–771. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Yazbeck AM, Tout KR, Stadler PF, Hertel J. Towards a consistent, quantitative evaluation of microRNA evolution. J Integr Bioinform. 2017;14:20160013. doi: 10.1515/jib-2016-0013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  119. Yekta S, Tabin CJ, Bartel DP. MicroRNAs in the Hox network: an apparent link to posterior prevalence. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:789–796. doi: 10.1038/nrg2400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  120. Zhao Y, Lu G-A, Yang H, Lin P, Liufu Z, Tang T, et al. Run or die in the evolution of new microRNAs–testing the red queen hypothesis on de novo new genes. Mol Biol Evol. 2021;38:1544–1553. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  121. Zouros E, Rodakis GC. Doubly uniparental inheritance of mtDNA: an unappreciated defiance of a general rule. Adv Anat Embryol Cell Biol. 2019;231:25–49. doi: 10.1007/102_2018_4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data used for the present study are publicly available in GenBank.

Articles from Heredity are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES