Table 2. Variations in (C+G)% and ρ(CG) statistics among differing RNA classes.
RNA | Species | (C+G)% | ρ(CG) |
---|---|---|---|
tRNAs (cytoplasmic) | M.jannaschii | 66.2 | 0.72 |
Plasmodium | 25.6 | 0.88 | |
C.elegans | 58.8 | 0.92 | |
H.sapiens | 58.0 | 1.00 | |
rRNAs | M.jannaschii | 63.8 | 0.87 |
Plasmodium | 36.0 | 0.98 | |
C.elegans | 48.0 | 1.04 | |
H.sapiens | 60.3 | 1.03 | |
SRP RNAs | M.jannaschii | 65.7 | 0.66 |
C.elegans | 56.8 | 1.07 | |
H.sapiens | 58.3 | 0.48 | |
Small nuclear RNAs | C.elegans | 43.1 | 1.01 |
H.sapiens | 44.3 | 0.90 | |
sno- and sno-like RNAs | M.jannaschii | 48.7 | 0.83 |
H.sapiens | 44.2 | 0.38 | |
Riboregulator RNAs | H.sapiens | 47.6 | 0.33 |
All eukaryotes | 44.4 | 0.46 | |
Pseudoknot RNAs | All bacteria | 52.0 | 0.86 |
All viruses | 51.8 | 0.98 |
This table shows some of the variations in (C+G)% and ρ(CG) values among different classes of RNAs for M.jannaschii, Plasmodium (multiple species combined because of limited data), C.elegans and H.sapiens. For the riboregulator and pseudoknot databases, which contain limited or no data for these species, RNA sequence data from other groups of organisms are shown. The base-composition variations shown in the table indicate which ncRNA types are more likely to be detected by a RNA gene-finder based on (C+G)% and ρ(CG). For example, one notes that (C+G)% is only 48.7% in M.jannaschii snoRNAs and 43.1% in C.elegans snRNAs. Consequently these RNAs would be more difficult to detect using a (C+G)% detector than the more G+C rich tRNAs, rRNAs and SRP RNAs.