Translation Efficiency in Upstream Region of microRNA Targets in Arabidopsis thaliana

Wanjun Gu; Chuanying Zhai; Xiaofei Wang; Xueying Xie; Gurunadh Parinandi; Tong Zhou

doi:10.4137/EBO.S10362

. 2012 Sep 25;8:565–574. doi: 10.4137/EBO.S10362

Translation Efficiency in Upstream Region of microRNA Targets in Arabidopsis thaliana

Wanjun Gu ^1,^✉, Chuanying Zhai ¹, Xiaofei Wang ¹, Xueying Xie ¹, Gurunadh Parinandi ^2,³, Tong Zhou ^2,^3,^✉

PMCID: PMC3469488 PMID: 23071387

Abstract

With respect to upstream regions of microRNA (miRNA) target sites located in protein coding sequences, experimental studies have suggested rare codons, rather than frequent codons, are important for miRNA function, because they slow down the local translational process. But, whether there is a trend of reduced translation efficiency near miRNA targets is still unknown. Using Arabidopsis thaliana, we perform genome-wide analysis of synonymous codon usage in upstream regions of miRNA target sites. At the whole genome level, we find no significant selection signals for decreased translational efficiency. However, the same genome analyses do show substantial variations of translation efficiency reduction among miRNA targets. We find that miRNA conservation level, gene codon usage bias, and the mechanism of miRNA action can account for the differences in translation efficiency. But gene’s GC content, gene expression level, and miRNA target’s conservation level have no effect on local translation efficiency of miRNA targets. Although local translation efficiency in the upstream region of miRNA targets is related to miRNA function in A. thaliana, the selection signal of rare codon usage in that region is weak. We propose some other biological factors are more important than local translation efficiency in miRNA action when miRNA targets are located in protein coding sequences.

Keywords: translation efficiency, miRNA binding, synonymous codons

Introduction

microRNAs (miRNAs) are small, non-coding RNAs that are between nineteen to twenty-five nucleotides in length. miRNAs function as post-transcriptional regulators by complementarily binding to sequences on target mRNAs.¹ After specific binding of miRNAs to their target sites, targeted mRNA transcripts are usually silenced by translational repression, mRNA degradation, or gene silencing.²^,³ miRNAs have been widely found in many eukaryotes.⁴ For example, more than 1,000 miRNAs which can target more than half of the human genes have been identified in the human genome. Since they have important functions in gene expression regulation, miRNAs are involved in many biological processes such as cell differentiation, development, and metabolism.¹ Aberrant miRNA expression, or miRNA activity, has been associated with many diseases,⁵ such as cancer,⁶ schizophrenia,⁷ and cardiomyopathy.⁸

In genome evolution, various sequence features have been selected to ensure proper miRNA activity.⁴ For example, miRNA genes, especially those in the seed region, are well conserved in plants⁹ and animals.¹ Low level of nucleotide polymorphisms in miRNA genes has also been observed in many species.¹⁰ Similar to miRNA genes, less nucleotide polymorphisms within species and lower nucleotide diversity among species have been observed in miRNA target regions.¹¹ In plants, miRNA target regions are mostly located in protein coding sequences. Unlike plants, animal miRNAs have their target sites in 3′-UTR region of mRNA transcripts.¹ However, many recent studies have suggested that animal miRNAs have functional target sites in protein coding regions as well as in non-coding regions.¹²^–¹⁷ Protein coding sequences may code extra information for proper miRNA activity.

Many studies have suggested protein coding sequences have the ability to code regulatory information by using specific synonymous codons.¹⁸ Increasing evidence has shown that synonymous codons are widely selected for various biological functions in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.¹⁹^,²⁰ These selections can then be divided into three layers. First, biased usage of synonymous codons is related to biological features at the DNA level (such as DNA secondary structures²¹ and nucleosome positioning).²² Second, it is related to some features at the RNA level. These include mRNA stability,²³^,²⁴ mRNA splicing,²⁵^,²⁶ translation initiation,²⁷^–²⁹ and translation efficiency and accuracy.²⁰^,³⁰^–³³ Third, at the protein level, synonymous codons at specific positions are selected for proper co-translational protein folding.³⁴^,³⁵ Some recent analyses have suggested that synonymous codon usage is also related to miRNA function.³⁶^–³⁹ A computational analysis has observed low synonymous substitution rates in several miRNA target regions in humans.³⁶ By comparing orthologs of 29 mammals, Lin et al has suggested some genes are experiencing negative selection at synonymous codon sites in order to maintain proper miRNA function.³⁸^,³⁹ Silent mutations in some miRNA coding targets have been observed to eliminate miRNA activity, as well as delay the induced phenotype in mice.¹⁷ Additionally, a synonymous mutation at the binding site of miR-196 in IRGM has been associated with Crohn’s disease.⁴⁰ All these observations have suggested that synonymous codons directly targeted by miRNAs are selected for proper miRNA activity and function.

Other than codons directly bound to miRNAs, nucleotides near miRNA binding sites present an important part in miRNA function. miRNAs are required to bind to their target sites in order to initiate the regulatory process.² Surrounding nucleotides of miRNA target sites may affect miRNA binding, which is caused by local mRNA secondary structure⁴¹^–⁴³ and/or upstream translation efficiency.⁴⁴^,⁴⁵ Therefore, synonymous codons near miRNA target sites may be selected for efficient miRNA binding. Gu et al has shown experimentally that rare codons, located within upstream miRNA target sites, can slow down local translational process and increase miRNA activity in mammalian cells.⁴⁴ Another computational analysis did not reveal any consecutive rare codons within the upstream region of a virus miRNA target.⁴⁵ It is still unknown whether or not there is a biased usage of rare codons in the upstream region of miRNA target.

In this study, we performed a genome-wide analysis of local translation efficiency in the upstream region of all miRNA coding targets in Arabidopsis thaliana. We chose to use A. thaliana since plants have more target sites in protein coding sequences than animals, and A. thaliana is itself a well-studied plant organism. Although plant miRNAs are different from animal miRNAs in miRNA action, the requirement of opening miRNA target sites for miRNA binding is largely the same. Decreased local translation efficiency is related to miRNA function by making miRNA target sites more accessible in animal genomes.⁴⁴ Therefore, if translation efficiency is important for miRNA activity, local translation efficiency should be selected in plant genomes as well. For each miRNA target region, we computed the local translation efficiency in the upstream region of miRNA target sites. To estimate the significance of synonymous selection for translation efficiency, we permuted mRNA sequences and assessed the deviation from random expectation. We addressed the following problems: (1) Is there any selection pressure acting on synonymous codons in upstream region of miRNA target sites for decreased translation efficiency? (2) Is there any variation of local translation efficiency among miRNA targets in the genome? (3) If there is within-genome variation, what are the possible factors that may affect local translation efficiency?

Materials and Methods

Data

We first downloaded all the protein coding sequences for A. thaliana from Ensembl⁴⁶ (http://plants.ensembl.org, release 9, April 2011) using BioMart.⁴⁷ In the case where a gene has multiple transcripts, we chose the longest transcript for our analysis. Next, we downloaded all miRNAs for A. thaliana from miRBase⁴⁸ (http://www.mirbase.org, release 16, September 2010). We then used the psTarget server⁴⁹ (http://plantgrn.noble.org/psRNATarget) to parse all of the putative miRNA target regions in protein coding sequences. All predicted miRNA target regions were available in the Supplementary Table 1.

To evaluate possible factors on local translation efficiency near miRNA target region, we downloaded the conservation data and expression data for both miRNAs and their target genes. miRNAs have been dynamically gained and lost throughout the evolutionary history of A. thaliana.¹⁰ Some miRNAs are well conserved in all land plants, while some are specific to a single species or lineage. We classified miRNAs in A. thaliana into three conservation groups (A. thaliana specific miRNAs, Arabidopsis lineage specific miRNAs, and conserved miRNAs). The conservation category for each miRNA was obtained from Fahlgren et al.¹⁰ Similarly, miRNA target regions have experienced dynamic gain or loss as well.¹⁰ Hence, we also classified miRNA target regions in A. thaliana into two conservation groups (A. thaliana specific target regions and conserved target regions in Arabidopsis lineage). The conservation category for each miRNA target region was also parsed from Fahlgren et al.¹⁰ Then, we downloaded Massively Parallel Signature Sequencing (MPSS) data of miRNAs and their target transcripts for A. thaliana from plant MPSS database⁵⁰ (http://mpss.udel.edu/at/mpss_index.php). Since there are not enough expression data for each specific tissue, we used two different measures to estimate the expression level from MPSS data across different tissues. We first summed the number of sequenced short tags for each mRNA or miRNA over all tissues (Exp_sum), and used it to estimate its expression level. Next, we counted the number of tissues with sequenced tags for each mRNA or miRNA (Exp_count) and used this number as another measure of expression level. We only considered mRNAs or miRNAs with 4 or more tags in a tissue as valid MPSS data.⁵¹

Plant miRNAs can suppress its target gene by translational repression or RNA degradation.³ miRNAs with central mismatches to its target mRNA tend to suppress gene expression by translational repression, while miRNAs with perfect central matches to its target mRNA tend to cleave target mRNA.⁴⁹ Hence, all miRNA target regions in A. thaliana are then classified into two groups: miRNA targets with action mechanism of translational repression and miRNA targets with action mechanism of RNA degradation.

Translation efficiency

We used tRNA adaptation index (tAI) to quantify the translation efficiency of mRNA segments.⁵² tAI is a measure of codon adaptation to the tRNA abundance in the genome, which has been proved to be a good indicator of translation efficiency and accuracy.²⁹ tAI was calculated using the codonR package.⁵² In tAI calculation, tRNA copy numbers are required to estimate tRNA abundance. We downloaded tRNA copy numbers for A. thaliana from the Genomic tRNA Database⁵³ (http://lowlab.ucsc.edu/GtRNAdb, May 2011).

mRNA randomization

If selection acts on synonymous codons near miRNA target sites to slow down the local translational process and facilitate miRNA binding, local translation efficiency in the upstream region of miRNA target sites in real mRNAs should be statistically different than that of randomized sequences. Therefore, for each mRNA transcript that is targeted by miRNAs in the protein coding region, we randomly shuffled synonymous codons among sites. mRNA sequences were shuffled after randomization while the encoded protein sequences, gene’s codon usage bias, and gene’s GC composition were kept the same. Since miRNA target sites are important for miRNA function, codons directly targeted by miRNAs were not shuffled during the mRNA randomization process. We generated 1,000 such permuted mRNA sequences for each miRNA target gene.

Since we were interested in local translation efficiency in the upstream region of miRNA targets, we calculated tAI in a window of nine consecutive codons right before the nucleotides targeted by miRNAs. A window of nine consecutive codons was chosen as experimental analysis had validated that nine upstream rare codons could increase target site accessibility and miRNA activity.⁴⁴ We also performed the analysis using several different window sizes (7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 consecutive codons) and confirmed that the choice of window size would not change our conclusions (data is not shown). To determine the deviation of the real sequence from randomized sequences, we calculated the Z-score of the local translation efficiency (Z_tAI) for each miRNA target region by:

Z_{t A I} = \frac{{t A I}_{N} - \bar{{t A I}_{P}}}{\sqrt{\sum_{i = 1}^{n} \frac{{({t A I}_{P_{i}} - \bar{{t A I}_{P}})}^{2}}{n - 1}}}

Here, tAI_N is the local translation efficiency for the naturally occurring target region under consideration. tAI_Pi is the local translation efficiency for the target region in ith permuted sequence, and $\bar{{t A I}_{P}}$ is the mean of tAI_Pi over all permuted sequences. The variable n represents the total number of permuted sequences, which is equal to 1,000 in our analysis.

Unlike tAI, Z_tAI measures the deviation of the local translation efficiency in real mRNA from randomized sequences. A negative Z_tAI means lower translation efficiency is selected within upstream region of miRNA target sites, while a positive Z_tAI means higher translation efficiency is preferred. Hence, we used Z_tAI as the indicator of synonymous selection of local translation efficiency in the upstream region of miRNA target sites.

Results

Overall local translation efficiency upstream miRNA targets in A. thaliana

In A. thaliana, we parsed 1,000 miRNA target sites in protein coding region of mRNA transcripts (Supplementary Table 1). For each miRNA target region, we permuted mRNA sequences and calculated the Z-score of local translation efficiency (Z_tAI). The mean Z_tAI value of all miRNA targets was slightly above zero (Z_tAI = 0.048). Statistical analysis showed the overall Z_tAI did not deviate significantly from zero (Supplementary Fig. 1; t-test, P = 0.15). Therefore, there was no selection signal for decreased translation efficiency on synonymous codon sites with respect to upstream miRNA targets when all miRNA coding target regions in A. thaliana were taken into account.

Within genome variation of Z_tAI upstream miRNA target sites and potential factors

Although Z_tAI was not significantly different from zero at the genome level, there was a substantial variation of Z_tAI values among miRNA target regions (Supplementary Fig. 1). It is still possible that a subset of miRNA target regions may have signals of reduced local translation efficiency. Next, we tried to determine if we could find a subset of miRNA target regions that are selected for reduced local translation efficiency in the upstream region. We investigated several potential factors that might affect local translation efficiency in upstream miRNA target regions. These included gene’s GC content, gene’s codon usage bias, conservation level of miRNAs and miRNA target regions, expression level of miRNA and miRNA target gene, and mode of miRNA action.

GC content

We first considered gene’s GC content. We did not observe a significant correlation between the gene’s GC content and local Z_tAI in the upstream region of miRNA target sites (Supplementary Fig. 2A; Pearson’s correlation test, P = 0.39). We further separated miRNA targets in genes with the highest 5% and the lowest 5% GC content, and compared Z_tAI of these two groups. miRNA target regions in genes with the highest 5% GC content and the lowest 5% GC content had similar local Z_tAI values (t-test, P = 0.85; Supplementary Fig. 2B). For each group of miRNA target regions, neither miRNA targets in genes with higher GC content (t-test, P = 0.31) nor those in genes with lower GC content (t-test, P = 0.21) had Z_tAI values that deviated significantly from zero (Supplementary Fig. 2B).

Gene codon bias

Next, we considered the gene codon usage bias. We used ENC (Effective Number of Codons) to measure a gene’s codon usage bias.⁵⁴ The higher a gene’s codon usage bias, the lower the gene’s ENC. We compared Z_tAI of target regions in genes with the top 5% ENC to genes with the bottom 5% ENC. There was a significant difference (t-test, P = 0.03) of Z_tAI values between miRNA targets in genes with different codon usage bias (Fig. 1). Notably, miRNA target regions in genes with higher codon bias had lower Z_tAI values. The mean value of Z_tAI was weakly significant (Fig. 1; t-test, P = 0.09), and was less than zero when miRNA target regions in genes with the bottom 5% ENC were separately considered. In contrast, the mean value of Z_tAI of miRNA target regions in genes with the top 5% ENC was positive (Fig. 1), but not significant (t-test, P = 0.17).

Comparison of Z_tAI values of miRNA targets with the top 5% and bottom 5% codon usage bias in *A. thaliana*.

Conservation level of miRNA and its target region

We further considered the conservation level of miRNA and its target regions. First, we compared the mean value of Z_tAI for miRNA target regions with different miRNA conservation levels (Fig. 2A). Target regions with Arabidopsis lineage-specific miRNAs had significantly lower Z_tAI values, when compared to those with A. thaliana specific miRNAs (t-test, P = 0.02). However, the mean value of Z_tAI in target regions with Arabidopsis lineage-specific miRNAs, when compared to those with deep conserved miRNAs, showed no statistical difference (t-test, P = 0.62). Notably, the Z_tAI values of target regions with A. thaliana specific miRNAs were statistically positive (t-test, P-value = 0.03; Fig. 2A). Second, we compared Z_tAI values between target regions with different conservation levels. Target regions that specific to A. thaliana and those conserved in Arabidopsis lineage had similar Z_tAI values (Fig. 2B; t-test, P = 0.98). When miRNA target regions were separated by target region conservation level, none of the subgroups showed Z_tAI values to be statistically deviated from zero (Fig. 2B).

Comparison of Z_tAI values in upstream region of miRNA targets with (A) miRNA conservation level and (B) different conservation level of miRNA target sites.

miRNA expression and target gene expression

We also considered the expression level of miRNA and its target mRNA. When comparing Z_tAI values of miRNA targets with the highest 5% expression level to those with the lowest 5% gene expression level, we did not observe any significant difference. No method of quantifying the gene expression affected local translation efficiency (Exp_sum: t-test, P = 0.99, Exp_tissue: t-test, P = 0.48; Supplementary Fig. 3). Other than the gene expression level, we compared Z_tAI in miRNA targets with the highest 5% mRNA expression level to those with the lowest 5% expression level. We did not find any obvious difference between these two groups of targets (Exp_sum: t-test, P = 0.85, Exp_tissue: t-test, P = 0.90; Supplementary Fig. 4). When miRNA targets were separated by expression level from miRNA or its target gene, Z_tAI showed no significant deviation from zero in all subgroups (Supplementary Figs. 3 and 4).

Mechanism of miRNA regulation

We finally considered the mechanism that miRNAs use to regulate target gene’s expression. We compared Z_tAIvalues of miRNA targets with these two mechanisms of miRNA regulation. Z_tAI values in these two groups of miRNA targets showed significant difference (t-test, P = 0.02; Fig. 3). miRNA targets with the action mechanism of translational repression showed significant positive Z_tAI values (t-test, P = 0.006). Those miRNA targets with the action mechanism of RNA degradation showed no significant deviation (t-test, P = 0.91).

Comparison of Z_tAI values in upstream region of miRNA targets with different mechanisms of miRNA action.

Discussion

Here we have completed a genome wide survey of local translation efficiency in the upstream region of miRNA target sites in A. thaliana. We have observed no significant difference of local translation efficiency in upstream region of miRNA target sites in protein coding sequences (Supplementary Fig. 1). However, we have observed substantial variations of Z_tAI values among miRNA target regions (Supplementary Fig. 1). We have also identified several factors that may explain the local translation efficiency selection variation (Figs. 1, 2A and 3).

The factors that are related to selection of local translation efficiency include gene codon usage bias, miRNA conservation level, and mechanism of miRNA regulation. Since codon preference and tRNA abundance are highly correlated, synonymous codons are selected for efficient mRNA translation in A. thaliana.⁵¹ If reduced local translation efficiency was important for proper miRNA function, biased usage of rare codons in upstream regions of miRNA target sites should be more obvious for genes with higher codon usage bias. Our results show Z_tAI values are significantly smaller for miRNA target regions in genes with higher codon usage bias (Fig. 1), which is consistent with the above inference.

Previous analysis has also suggested that younger miRNAs are experiencing less purifying selection than conserved miRNAs.¹⁰^,⁵⁵ In our analysis, miRNA target regions bound by conserved miRNAs have negative Z_tAI values, while those targeted by recently gained miRNAs in A. thaliana have positive Z_tAI values (Fig. 2A). This suggests selection of reduced local translation efficiency is smaller for target regions with younger miRNAs, which is similar to reduced purifying selection in younger miRNA genes.¹⁰^,⁵⁵ In addition to gene codon usage and miRNA conservation level, we observed a significant difference of Z_tAI values in groups of miRNA targets using different mechanisms to regulate target mRNAs (Fig. 3). miRNA targets with the mechanism of RNA degradation have lower Z_tAI values, when compared to those with the mechanism of translational repression. The reason why these two groups of miRNA target regions have different Z_tAI values is unclear. It may be caused by different base pairing schemes of miRNA and mRNA within these two miRNA target groups, since target recognition can potentially affect miRNA binding.² We have also found some other factors, such as a gene’s GC content, gene expression, miRNA expression, and conservation level of target region, do not affect local translation efficiency in the upstream region of miRNA target sites. Therefore, significant Z_tAI differences between subgroups of miRNA targets with different gene codon bias, miRNA conservation level, and mode of miRNA action, suggest local translation efficiency is related to proper miRNA function.

Although local translation efficiency is related to miRNA binding, the selective effect of reduced local translation efficiency is weak. When different subsets of miRNA targets are considered separately, only miRNA target regions in genes with the top 5% codon usage bias show a marginally significant signal of reduced local translation efficiency (Fig. 1). But, miRNA targets which are bound to A. thaliana specific miRNAs, as well as those with mechanism of translational repression, have a significant signal of increased local translation efficiency. This is contrary to the proposed reduced local translation efficiency in upstream region of miRNA targets. Previous analysis has suggested synonymous codons are selected for efficient mRNA translation in A. thaliana.⁵¹ Hence, the increased local translation efficiency within these two groups of miRNA targets could be the signal of efficient translational selection for full-length mRNA. Compared to translational selection acting on full-length mRNA, a selective constraint to slow down the local translation process in the upstream region of miRNA target sites is probably too weak to be detected.

Our results are comparable with two previous experimental studies that examined the effects of translation on miRNA activity.⁴⁴^,⁴⁵ Both studies have proposed that translation may inhibit miRNA access to its target sites when they are located in protein coding regions.⁴⁴^,⁴⁵ Gu et al⁴⁴ has observed a loss in miRNA function when a miRNA target naturally located in 3′-UTR is modified to be situated in human protein coding regions. However, if the local translational process of miRNA upstream target sites were slowed down, miRNA activity can be restored. In contrast, Lin et al⁴⁵ suggested that translation can diminish, but not completely stop miRNA activity. This was accomplished through analysis of a naturally occurring viral miRNA target located in the coding region of one transcript, and in the 3′-UTR of an overlapping transcript. However, codon usage in the upstream region of that viral miRNA target is similar to randomly selecting cellular and viral coding sequences.

In our results, we have confirmed local translation efficiency is related to miRNA activity in A. thaliana. The selection constraint of reduced local translation efficiency is weak, however, which is consistent with the suggestions of Lin et al.⁴⁵ What might be the reason that a different magnitude of translation effect has been observed on miRNA activity? As indicated by Lin et al,⁴⁵ we have analyzed naturally occurring miRNA targets in A. thaliana protein coding sequences. In contrast, Gu et al⁴⁴ made their conclusions on model constructs. This may partly explain the different effects of local translation efficiency on miRNA activity observed in these studies.

Another notable difference is whether rare codons are preferred in upstream region of miRNA targets to facilitate miRNA binding. We have observed most miRNA targets have no preference to use rare codons in their upstream region. However, some miRNA target sites do prefer to use rare codons in the upstream region, such as those in genes with higher codon usage bias. This was observed because we have performed a genome wide analysis on miRNA targets. We have analyzed all miRNA targets in protein coding sequences for A. thaliana, compared to only one viral miRNA target by Lin et al,⁴⁵ or several miRNA targets in human by Gu et al.⁴⁴ Therefore the conclusion could be biased when inferred from a single or several miRNA targets. Though local translational process is related to miRNA binding when miRNA targets are located in protein coding sequences, local translation efficiency is not strongly selected in A. thaliana. As suggested by Lin et al,⁴⁵ some other genomic features, such as local mRNA secondary structure, or fold energy near miRNA targets,⁴¹^,⁴² may be the potential factor to facilitate miRNA binding. Recently, we have found increased site accessibility is widely selected to ensure miRNA activity in plant genomes.⁵⁶ Although somewhat different, our results are largely comparable with those two previous studies.

In conclusion, we suggest synonymous codon usage in the upstream region of miRNA targets is related to local translation efficiency in A. thaliana. However, the selective constraints near most miRNA targets are too weak to be detected. In addition to local translation efficiency, other genomic features may be even more important to miRNA activity, when miRNA targets are located in protein coding sequences. By analyzing local translation efficiency of all miRNA targets in protein coding sequences of A. thaliana, we present a genomic view of selective effects on synonymous codon usage in the upstream region of miRNA targets for proper miRNA activity.

Supplementary Data

Figure S1.

Histogram of Z_tAI values of all miRNA targets in protein coding sequences in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Note: The solid line represents a null normal distribution.

ebo-8-2012-565s1.tif^{(94.5KB, tif)}

Figure S2.

(A) The correlation between local Z_tAI and gene GC content of each miRNA target in Arabidopsis thaliana. Each point represents a miRNA target in the genome. (B) Comparison of Z_tAI values in upstream region of miRNA targets in genes with the highest 5% and lowest 5% GC content in Arabidopsis thaliana.

ebo-8-2012-565s2.tif^{(127.2KB, tif)}

Figure S3.

Comparison of Z_tAI of miRNA targets with the top 5% and bottom 5% expression level of miRNA gene in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Note: Both expressed tag counts (Exp_sum) and the number of expressed tissues (Exp_count) are used to quantify gene expression level.

ebo-8-2012-565s3.tif^{(77.2KB, tif)}

Figure S4.

Comparison of Z_tAI of miRNA targets with the top 5% and bottom 5% expression level of miRNA target gene in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Note: Both expressed tag counts (Exp_sum) and the number of expressed tissues (Exp_count) are used to quantify gene expression level.

ebo-8-2012-565s4.tif^{(84.2KB, tif)}

Table S1

miRNA targets in protein coding sequences in Arabidopsis thaliana.

ebo-8-2012-565-t1.xls^{(190KB, xls)}

Footnotes

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Basic Research Program of China [2012CB316501 to WG and XX], the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Project) [2012AA020401 to WG], National Natural Science Foundation of China [30900836 and 61171143 to WG, and 61001175 to XX], and a SRF for ROCS, SEM, China.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: WG and TZ. Analyzed the data: WG, CZ, XW, XX and TZ. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: WG. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: GP and TZ. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: CZ, XW and TZ. All authors reviewed and approved of the manuscript.

Competing Interests

Author(s) disclose no potential conflicts of interest.

Disclosures and Ethics

As a requirement of publication author(s) have provided to the publisher signed confirmation of compliance with legal and ethical obligations including but not limited to the following: authorship and contributorship, conflicts of interest, privacy and confidentiality and (where applicable) protection of human and animal research subjects. The authors have read and confirmed their agreement with the ICMJE authorship and conflict of interest criteria. The authors have also confirmed that this article is unique and not under consideration or published in any other publication, and that they have permission from rights holders to reproduce any copyrighted material. Any disclosures are made in this section. The external blind peer reviewers report no conflicts of interest.

References

1.Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: target recognition and regulatory functions. Cell. 2009 Jan 23;136(2):215–33. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Brodersen P, Voinnet O. Revisiting the principles of microRNA target recognition and mode of action. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009 Feb;10(2):141–8. doi: 10.1038/nrm2619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Fabian MR, Sonenberg N, Filipowicz W. Regulation of mRNA translation and stability by microRNAs. Annu Rev Biochem. 2010;79:351–79. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060308-103103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Axtell MJ, Westholm JO, Lai EC. Vive la difference: biogenesis and evolution of microRNAs in plants and animals. Genome Biol. 2011 Apr 28;12(4):221. doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-4-221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Esteller M. Non-coding RNAs in human disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Dec;12(12):861–74. doi: 10.1038/nrg3074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Nicoloso MS, Spizzo R, Shimizu M, Rossi S, Calin GA. MicroRNAs—the micro steering wheel of tumour metastases. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009 Apr;9(4):293–302. doi: 10.1038/nrc2619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Beveridge NJ, Gardiner E, Carroll AP, Tooney PA, Cairns MJ. Schizophrenia is associated with an increase in cortical microRNA biogenesis. Mol Psychiatry. 2010 Dec;15(12):1176–89. doi: 10.1038/mp.2009.84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Chen JF, Murchison EP, Tang R, et al. Targeted deletion of Dicer in the heart leads to dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 12;105(6):2111–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710228105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Axtell MJ, Bowman JL. Evolution of plant microRNAs and their targets. Trends Plant Sci. 2008 Jul;13(7):343–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2008.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Fahlgren N, Jogdeo S, Kasschau KD, et al. MicroRNA gene evolution in Arabidopsis lyrata and Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell. 2010 Apr;22(4):1074–89. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.073999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Cuperus JT, Fahlgren N, Carrington JC. Evolution and functional diversification of MIRNA genes. Plant Cell. 2011 Feb;23(2):431–42. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.082784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Forman JJ, Coller HA. The code within the code: microRNAs target coding regions. Cell Cycle. 2010 Apr 15;9(8):1533–41. doi: 10.4161/cc.9.8.11202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Forman JJ, Legesse-Miller A, Coller HA. A search for conserved sequences in coding regions reveals that the let-7 microRNA targets Dicer within its coding sequence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Sep 30;105(39):14879–84. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803230105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Rigoutsos I. New tricks for animal microRNAS: targeting of amino acid coding regions at conserved and nonconserved sites. Cancer Res. 2009 Apr 15;69(8):3245–8. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Schnall-Levin M, Rissland OS, Johnston WK, Perrimon N, Bartel DP, Berger B. Unusually effective microRNA targeting within repeat-rich coding regions of mammalian mRNAs. Genome Res. 2011 Jul 18;21:1395–403. doi: 10.1101/gr.121210.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Schnall-Levin M, Zhao Y, Perrimon N, Berger B. Conserved microRNA targeting in Drosophila is as widespread in coding regions as in 3′UTRs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 7;107(36):15751–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006172107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Tay Y, Zhang J, Thomson AM, Lim B, Rigoutsos I. MicroRNAs to Nanog, Oct4 and Sox2 coding regions modulate embryonic stem cell differentiation. Nature. 2008 Oct 23;455(7216):1124–8. doi: 10.1038/nature07299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Segal E. Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 2010 Nov;20(11):1582–9. doi: 10.1101/gr.105072.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Chamary JV, Parmley JL, Hurst LD. Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites in mammals. Nat Rev Genet. 2006 Feb;7(2):98–108. doi: 10.1038/nrg1770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Duret L. Evolution of synonymous codon usage in metazoans. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002 Dec;12(6):640–9. doi: 10.1016/s0959-437x(02)00353-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Vinogradov AE. DNA helix: the importance of being GC-rich. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Apr 1;31(7):1838–44. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Warnecke T, Batada NN, Hurst LD. The impact of the nucleosome code on protein-coding sequence evolution in yeast. PLoS Genet. 2008 Nov;4(11):e1000250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Chamary JV, Hurst LD. Biased codon usage near intron-exon junctions: selection on splicing enhancers, splice-site recognition or something else? Trends Genet. 2005 May;21(5):256–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2005.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Stoletzki N. Conflicting selection pressures on synonymous codon use in yeast suggest selection on mRNA secondary structures. BMC Evol Biol. 2008;8:224. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Parmley JL, Chamary JV, Hurst LD. Evidence for purifying selection against synonymous mutations in mammalian exonic splicing enhancers. Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Feb;23(2):301–9. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msj035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Warnecke T, Hurst LD. Evidence for a trade-off between translational efficiency and splicing regulation in determining synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Dec;24(12):2755–62. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Gu W, Zhou T, Wilke CO. A universal trend of reduced mRNA stability near the translation-initiation site in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Feb;6(2):e1000664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000664. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Kudla G, Murray AW, Tollervey D, Plotkin JB. Coding-sequence determinants of gene expression in Escherichia coli. Science. 2009 Apr 10;324(5924):255–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1170160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Tuller T, Waldman YY, Kupiec M, Ruppin E. Translation efficiency is determined by both codon bias and folding energy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 23;107(8):3645–50. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909910107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Akashi H, Eyre-Walker A. Translational selection and molecular evolution. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1998 Dec;8(6):688–93. doi: 10.1016/s0959-437x(98)80038-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Ikemura T. Codon usage and tRNA content in unicellular and multicellular organisms. Mol Biol Evol. 1985 Jan;2(1):13–34. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Morton BR, Wright SI. Selective constraints on codon usage of nuclear genes from Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Jan;24(1):122–9. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Zhou T, Weems M, Wilke CO. Translationally optimal codons associate with structurally sensitive sites in proteins. Mol Biol Evol. 2009 Jul;26(7):1571–80. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Komar AA, Lesnik T, Reiss C. Synonymous codon substitutions affect ribosome traffic and protein folding during in vitro translation. FEBS Lett. 1999 Dec 3;462(3):387–91. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(99)01566-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Thanaraj TA, Argos P. Ribosome-mediated translational pause and protein domain organization. Protein Sci. 1996 Aug;5(8):1594–612. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560050814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Hurst LD. Preliminary assessment of the impact of microRNA-mediated regulation on coding sequence evolution in mammals. J Mol Evol. 2006 Aug;63(2):174–82. doi: 10.1007/s00239-005-0273-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Hurst LD. Molecular genetics: The sound of silence. Nature. 2011 Mar 31;471(7340):582–3. doi: 10.1038/471582a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Lin MF, Kheradpour P, Washietl S, Parker BJ, Pedersen JS, Kellis M. Locating protein-coding sequences under selection for additional, overlapping functions in 29 mammalian genomes. Genome Res. 2011 Nov;21(11):1916–28. doi: 10.1101/gr.108753.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Lindblad-Toh K, Garber M, Zuk O, et al. A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals. Nature. 2011 Oct 27;478(7370):476–82. doi: 10.1038/nature10530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Brest P, Lapaquette P, Souidi M, et al. A synonymous variant in IRGM alters a binding site for miR-196 and causes deregulation of IRGM-dependent xenophagy in Crohn’s disease. Nat Genet. 2011 Mar;43(3):242–5. doi: 10.1038/ng.762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Kertesz M, Iovino N, Unnerstall U, Gaul U, Segal E. The role of site accessibility in microRNA target recognition. Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1278–84. doi: 10.1038/ng2135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Long D, Lee R, Williams P, Chan CY, Ambros V, Ding Y. Potent effect of target structure on microRNA function. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007 Apr;14(4):287–94. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Sun G, Li H, Rossi JJ. Sequence context outside the target region influences the effectiveness of miR-223 target sites in the RhoB 3′UTR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Jan;38(1):239–52. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Gu S, Jin L, Zhang F, Sarnow P, Kay MA. Biological basis for restriction of microRNA targets to the 3′ untranslated region in mammalian mRNAs. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2009 Feb;16(2):144–50. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Lin HR, Ganem D. Viral microRNA target allows insight into the role of translation in governing microRNA target accessibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 29;108(13):5148–53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102033108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Kersey PJ, Lawson D, Birney E, et al. Ensembl Genomes: extending Ensembl across the taxonomic space. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Jan;38(Database issue):D563–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Haider S, Ballester B, Smedley D, Zhang J, Rice P, Kasprzyk A. BioMart Central Portal—unified access to biological data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jul 1;37(Web Server issue):W23–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Kozomara A, Griffiths-Jones S. miRBase: integrating microRNA annotation and deep-sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Jan;39(Database issue):D152–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq1027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Dai X, Zhao PX. psRNATarget: a plant small RNA target analysis server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Jul;39(Web Server issue):W155–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Meyers BC, Lee DK, Vu TH, et al. Arabidopsis MPSS. An online resource for quantitative expression analysis. Plant Physiol. 2004 Jun;135(2):801–13. doi: 10.1104/pp.104.039495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Wright SI, Yau CB, Looseley M, Meyers BC. Effects of gene expression on molecular evolution in Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis lyrata. Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Sep;21(9):1719–26. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msh191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.dos Reis M, Savva R, Wernisch L. Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(17):5036–44. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Chan PP, Lowe TM. GtRNAdb: a database of transfer RNA genes detected in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan;37(Database issue):D93–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Wright F. The ‘effective number of codons’ used in a gene. Gene. 1990 Mar 1;87(1):23–9. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90491-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Ehrenreich IM, Purugganan M. MicroRNAs in plants: Possible contributions to phenotypic diversity. Plant Signal Behav. 2008 Oct;3(10):829–30. doi: 10.4161/psb.3.10.5914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Gu W, Wang X, Zhai C, Xie X, Zhou T. Selection on Synonymous Sites for Increased Accessibility around miRNA Binding Sites in Plants. Mol Biol Evol. 2012 Apr 25; doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1.

Histogram of Z_tAI values of all miRNA targets in protein coding sequences in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Note: The solid line represents a null normal distribution.

ebo-8-2012-565s1.tif^{(94.5KB, tif)}

Figure S2.

ebo-8-2012-565s2.tif^{(127.2KB, tif)}

Figure S3.

Comparison of Z_tAI of miRNA targets with the top 5% and bottom 5% expression level of miRNA gene in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Note: Both expressed tag counts (Exp_sum) and the number of expressed tissues (Exp_count) are used to quantify gene expression level.

ebo-8-2012-565s3.tif^{(77.2KB, tif)}

Figure S4.

Comparison of Z_tAI of miRNA targets with the top 5% and bottom 5% expression level of miRNA target gene in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Note: Both expressed tag counts (Exp_sum) and the number of expressed tissues (Exp_count) are used to quantify gene expression level.

ebo-8-2012-565s4.tif^{(84.2KB, tif)}

Table S1

miRNA targets in protein coding sequences in Arabidopsis thaliana.

ebo-8-2012-565-t1.xls^{(190KB, xls)}

[b1-ebo-8-2012-565] 1.Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: target recognition and regulatory functions. Cell. 2009 Jan 23;136(2):215–33. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b2-ebo-8-2012-565] 2.Brodersen P, Voinnet O. Revisiting the principles of microRNA target recognition and mode of action. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2009 Feb;10(2):141–8. doi: 10.1038/nrm2619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b3-ebo-8-2012-565] 3.Fabian MR, Sonenberg N, Filipowicz W. Regulation of mRNA translation and stability by microRNAs. Annu Rev Biochem. 2010;79:351–79. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060308-103103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b4-ebo-8-2012-565] 4.Axtell MJ, Westholm JO, Lai EC. Vive la difference: biogenesis and evolution of microRNAs in plants and animals. Genome Biol. 2011 Apr 28;12(4):221. doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-4-221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b5-ebo-8-2012-565] 5.Esteller M. Non-coding RNAs in human disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Dec;12(12):861–74. doi: 10.1038/nrg3074. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b6-ebo-8-2012-565] 6.Nicoloso MS, Spizzo R, Shimizu M, Rossi S, Calin GA. MicroRNAs—the micro steering wheel of tumour metastases. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009 Apr;9(4):293–302. doi: 10.1038/nrc2619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b7-ebo-8-2012-565] 7.Beveridge NJ, Gardiner E, Carroll AP, Tooney PA, Cairns MJ. Schizophrenia is associated with an increase in cortical microRNA biogenesis. Mol Psychiatry. 2010 Dec;15(12):1176–89. doi: 10.1038/mp.2009.84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b8-ebo-8-2012-565] 8.Chen JF, Murchison EP, Tang R, et al. Targeted deletion of Dicer in the heart leads to dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 12;105(6):2111–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710228105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b9-ebo-8-2012-565] 9.Axtell MJ, Bowman JL. Evolution of plant microRNAs and their targets. Trends Plant Sci. 2008 Jul;13(7):343–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2008.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b10-ebo-8-2012-565] 10.Fahlgren N, Jogdeo S, Kasschau KD, et al. MicroRNA gene evolution in Arabidopsis lyrata and Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell. 2010 Apr;22(4):1074–89. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.073999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b11-ebo-8-2012-565] 11.Cuperus JT, Fahlgren N, Carrington JC. Evolution and functional diversification of MIRNA genes. Plant Cell. 2011 Feb;23(2):431–42. doi: 10.1105/tpc.110.082784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b12-ebo-8-2012-565] 12.Forman JJ, Coller HA. The code within the code: microRNAs target coding regions. Cell Cycle. 2010 Apr 15;9(8):1533–41. doi: 10.4161/cc.9.8.11202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b13-ebo-8-2012-565] 13.Forman JJ, Legesse-Miller A, Coller HA. A search for conserved sequences in coding regions reveals that the let-7 microRNA targets Dicer within its coding sequence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Sep 30;105(39):14879–84. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803230105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b14-ebo-8-2012-565] 14.Rigoutsos I. New tricks for animal microRNAS: targeting of amino acid coding regions at conserved and nonconserved sites. Cancer Res. 2009 Apr 15;69(8):3245–8. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b15-ebo-8-2012-565] 15.Schnall-Levin M, Rissland OS, Johnston WK, Perrimon N, Bartel DP, Berger B. Unusually effective microRNA targeting within repeat-rich coding regions of mammalian mRNAs. Genome Res. 2011 Jul 18;21:1395–403. doi: 10.1101/gr.121210.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b16-ebo-8-2012-565] 16.Schnall-Levin M, Zhao Y, Perrimon N, Berger B. Conserved microRNA targeting in Drosophila is as widespread in coding regions as in 3′UTRs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 7;107(36):15751–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1006172107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b17-ebo-8-2012-565] 17.Tay Y, Zhang J, Thomson AM, Lim B, Rigoutsos I. MicroRNAs to Nanog, Oct4 and Sox2 coding regions modulate embryonic stem cell differentiation. Nature. 2008 Oct 23;455(7216):1124–8. doi: 10.1038/nature07299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b18-ebo-8-2012-565] 18.Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Segal E. Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 2010 Nov;20(11):1582–9. doi: 10.1101/gr.105072.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b19-ebo-8-2012-565] 19.Chamary JV, Parmley JL, Hurst LD. Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites in mammals. Nat Rev Genet. 2006 Feb;7(2):98–108. doi: 10.1038/nrg1770. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b20-ebo-8-2012-565] 20.Duret L. Evolution of synonymous codon usage in metazoans. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002 Dec;12(6):640–9. doi: 10.1016/s0959-437x(02)00353-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b21-ebo-8-2012-565] 21.Vinogradov AE. DNA helix: the importance of being GC-rich. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Apr 1;31(7):1838–44. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkg296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b22-ebo-8-2012-565] 22.Warnecke T, Batada NN, Hurst LD. The impact of the nucleosome code on protein-coding sequence evolution in yeast. PLoS Genet. 2008 Nov;4(11):e1000250. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b23-ebo-8-2012-565] 23.Chamary JV, Hurst LD. Biased codon usage near intron-exon junctions: selection on splicing enhancers, splice-site recognition or something else? Trends Genet. 2005 May;21(5):256–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2005.03.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b24-ebo-8-2012-565] 24.Stoletzki N. Conflicting selection pressures on synonymous codon use in yeast suggest selection on mRNA secondary structures. BMC Evol Biol. 2008;8:224. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b25-ebo-8-2012-565] 25.Parmley JL, Chamary JV, Hurst LD. Evidence for purifying selection against synonymous mutations in mammalian exonic splicing enhancers. Mol Biol Evol. 2006 Feb;23(2):301–9. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msj035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b26-ebo-8-2012-565] 26.Warnecke T, Hurst LD. Evidence for a trade-off between translational efficiency and splicing regulation in determining synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Dec;24(12):2755–62. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b27-ebo-8-2012-565] 27.Gu W, Zhou T, Wilke CO. A universal trend of reduced mRNA stability near the translation-initiation site in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2010 Feb;6(2):e1000664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000664. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b28-ebo-8-2012-565] 28.Kudla G, Murray AW, Tollervey D, Plotkin JB. Coding-sequence determinants of gene expression in Escherichia coli. Science. 2009 Apr 10;324(5924):255–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1170160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b29-ebo-8-2012-565] 29.Tuller T, Waldman YY, Kupiec M, Ruppin E. Translation efficiency is determined by both codon bias and folding energy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 23;107(8):3645–50. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0909910107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b30-ebo-8-2012-565] 30.Akashi H, Eyre-Walker A. Translational selection and molecular evolution. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 1998 Dec;8(6):688–93. doi: 10.1016/s0959-437x(98)80038-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b31-ebo-8-2012-565] 31.Ikemura T. Codon usage and tRNA content in unicellular and multicellular organisms. Mol Biol Evol. 1985 Jan;2(1):13–34. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b32-ebo-8-2012-565] 32.Morton BR, Wright SI. Selective constraints on codon usage of nuclear genes from Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol Biol Evol. 2007 Jan;24(1):122–9. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b33-ebo-8-2012-565] 33.Zhou T, Weems M, Wilke CO. Translationally optimal codons associate with structurally sensitive sites in proteins. Mol Biol Evol. 2009 Jul;26(7):1571–80. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b34-ebo-8-2012-565] 34.Komar AA, Lesnik T, Reiss C. Synonymous codon substitutions affect ribosome traffic and protein folding during in vitro translation. FEBS Lett. 1999 Dec 3;462(3):387–91. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(99)01566-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b35-ebo-8-2012-565] 35.Thanaraj TA, Argos P. Ribosome-mediated translational pause and protein domain organization. Protein Sci. 1996 Aug;5(8):1594–612. doi: 10.1002/pro.5560050814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b36-ebo-8-2012-565] 36.Hurst LD. Preliminary assessment of the impact of microRNA-mediated regulation on coding sequence evolution in mammals. J Mol Evol. 2006 Aug;63(2):174–82. doi: 10.1007/s00239-005-0273-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b37-ebo-8-2012-565] 37.Hurst LD. Molecular genetics: The sound of silence. Nature. 2011 Mar 31;471(7340):582–3. doi: 10.1038/471582a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b38-ebo-8-2012-565] 38.Lin MF, Kheradpour P, Washietl S, Parker BJ, Pedersen JS, Kellis M. Locating protein-coding sequences under selection for additional, overlapping functions in 29 mammalian genomes. Genome Res. 2011 Nov;21(11):1916–28. doi: 10.1101/gr.108753.110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b39-ebo-8-2012-565] 39.Lindblad-Toh K, Garber M, Zuk O, et al. A high-resolution map of human evolutionary constraint using 29 mammals. Nature. 2011 Oct 27;478(7370):476–82. doi: 10.1038/nature10530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b40-ebo-8-2012-565] 40.Brest P, Lapaquette P, Souidi M, et al. A synonymous variant in IRGM alters a binding site for miR-196 and causes deregulation of IRGM-dependent xenophagy in Crohn’s disease. Nat Genet. 2011 Mar;43(3):242–5. doi: 10.1038/ng.762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b41-ebo-8-2012-565] 41.Kertesz M, Iovino N, Unnerstall U, Gaul U, Segal E. The role of site accessibility in microRNA target recognition. Nat Genet. 2007 Oct;39(10):1278–84. doi: 10.1038/ng2135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b42-ebo-8-2012-565] 42.Long D, Lee R, Williams P, Chan CY, Ambros V, Ding Y. Potent effect of target structure on microRNA function. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2007 Apr;14(4):287–94. doi: 10.1038/nsmb1226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b43-ebo-8-2012-565] 43.Sun G, Li H, Rossi JJ. Sequence context outside the target region influences the effectiveness of miR-223 target sites in the RhoB 3′UTR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Jan;38(1):239–52. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b44-ebo-8-2012-565] 44.Gu S, Jin L, Zhang F, Sarnow P, Kay MA. Biological basis for restriction of microRNA targets to the 3′ untranslated region in mammalian mRNAs. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2009 Feb;16(2):144–50. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.1552. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b45-ebo-8-2012-565] 45.Lin HR, Ganem D. Viral microRNA target allows insight into the role of translation in governing microRNA target accessibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 29;108(13):5148–53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102033108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b46-ebo-8-2012-565] 46.Kersey PJ, Lawson D, Birney E, et al. Ensembl Genomes: extending Ensembl across the taxonomic space. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Jan;38(Database issue):D563–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b47-ebo-8-2012-565] 47.Haider S, Ballester B, Smedley D, Zhang J, Rice P, Kasprzyk A. BioMart Central Portal—unified access to biological data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jul 1;37(Web Server issue):W23–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkp265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b48-ebo-8-2012-565] 48.Kozomara A, Griffiths-Jones S. miRBase: integrating microRNA annotation and deep-sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Jan;39(Database issue):D152–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq1027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b49-ebo-8-2012-565] 49.Dai X, Zhao PX. psRNATarget: a plant small RNA target analysis server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Jul;39(Web Server issue):W155–9. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b50-ebo-8-2012-565] 50.Meyers BC, Lee DK, Vu TH, et al. Arabidopsis MPSS. An online resource for quantitative expression analysis. Plant Physiol. 2004 Jun;135(2):801–13. doi: 10.1104/pp.104.039495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b51-ebo-8-2012-565] 51.Wright SI, Yau CB, Looseley M, Meyers BC. Effects of gene expression on molecular evolution in Arabidopsis thaliana and Arabidopsis lyrata. Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Sep;21(9):1719–26. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msh191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b52-ebo-8-2012-565] 52.dos Reis M, Savva R, Wernisch L. Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(17):5036–44. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh834. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b53-ebo-8-2012-565] 53.Chan PP, Lowe TM. GtRNAdb: a database of transfer RNA genes detected in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Jan;37(Database issue):D93–7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkn787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b54-ebo-8-2012-565] 54.Wright F. The ‘effective number of codons’ used in a gene. Gene. 1990 Mar 1;87(1):23–9. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90491-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b55-ebo-8-2012-565] 55.Ehrenreich IM, Purugganan M. MicroRNAs in plants: Possible contributions to phenotypic diversity. Plant Signal Behav. 2008 Oct;3(10):829–30. doi: 10.4161/psb.3.10.5914. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[b56-ebo-8-2012-565] 56.Gu W, Wang X, Zhai C, Xie X, Zhou T. Selection on Synonymous Sites for Increased Accessibility around miRNA Binding Sites in Plants. Mol Biol Evol. 2012 Apr 25; doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Translation Efficiency in Upstream Region of microRNA Targets in Arabidopsis thaliana

Wanjun Gu

Chuanying Zhai

Xiaofei Wang

Xueying Xie

Gurunadh Parinandi

Tong Zhou

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods