| Literature DB >> 25702798 |
Devis Pascut1, Giorgio Bedogni1, Claudio Tiribelli1.
Abstract
Post-transcriptional gene silencing is a widely used method to suppress gene expression. Unfortunately only a portion of siRNAs do successfully reduce gene expression. Target mRNA secondary structures and siRNA-mRNA thermodynamic features are believed to contribute to the silencing activity. However, there is still an open discussion as to what determines siRNA efficacy. In this retrospective study, we analysed the target accessibility comparing very high (VH) compared with low (L) efficacy siRNA sequences obtained from the siRecords Database. We determined the contribution of mRNA target local secondary structures on silencing efficacy. Both the univariable and the multivariable logistic regression evidenced no relationship between siRNA efficacy and mRNA target secondary structures. Moreover, none of the thermodynamic and sequence-base parameters taken into consideration (H-b index, ΔG°overall, ΔG°duplex, ΔG°break-target and GC%) was associated with siRNA efficacy. We found that features believed to be predictive of silencing efficacy are not confirmed to be so when externally evaluated in a large heterogeneous sample. Although it was proposed that silencing efficacy could be influenced by local target accessibility we show that this could be not generalizable because of the diversity of experimental setting that may not be representative of biological systems especially in view of the many local protein factors, usually not taken into consideration, which could hamper the silencing process.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25702798 PMCID: PMC4381284 DOI: 10.1042/BSR20140147
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosci Rep ISSN: 0144-8463 Impact factor: 3.840
Figure 1mRNA target secondary structures analysis
(a) For each siRNA, information on the targeted region within the mRNA was collected. (b) The number and position of unpaired bases within the mRNA local targeted region were listed. A single siRNA can target several local structures.
Figure 2Number of unpaired bases per local mRNA targeted structure
Figure 3Number of consecutive unpaired bases within the targeted mRNA local structure
Distribution of unpaired bases within the siRNA targeted structures
The table reports the number of observations (siRNAs) targeting mRNA regions with a variable number of unpaired bases. A single siRNA can target more than one local secondary structure within the mRNA. Only few siRNAs (both VH and L) bind to mRNA regions with higher amounts of unpaired nts.
| Loop 5′ | Loop 3′ | Int-loop | mb-Loop | H-loop | b-Loop | One-bb | Stem | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unpaired bases | VH | L | VH | L | VH | L | VH | L | VH | L | VH | L | VH | L | VH | L |
| Number of observations (siRNAs) | ||||||||||||||||
| 0 | 94 | 91 | 102 | 111 | 82 | 88 | 83 | 95 | 114 | 118 | 127 | 135 | 99 | 106 | 90 | 89 |
| 1 | 7 | 18 | 2 | 10 | 1 | – | 22 | 18 | – | – | 1 | – | 38 | 41 | 28 | 33 |
| 2 | 8 | 13 | 10 | 10 | 21 | 17 | 15 | 17 | – | – | 7 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 15 | 19 |
| 3 | 8 | 10 | 13 | 5 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 3 | – | – | 6 | 2 |
| 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 4 | – | – | 4 | 5 |
| 5 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 6 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 12 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | – |
| 6 | 5 | – | 1 | – | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 22 | 2 | – | 1 | – | – | – | 1 |
| 7 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3 | 3 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 9 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 10 | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 2 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 11 | – | 2 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 12 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 13 | 1 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 14 | 1 | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 15 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 16 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 17 | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 18 | – | – | – | 1 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Statistical analysis
| Univariable logistic regression | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loop 5′ | Loop 3′ | Int-loop | mb-Loop | H-loop | b-Loop | One-bb | Stem | |
| OR (95%CI) | 1.034 (0.945–1.143) | 1.06 (0.95–1.184) | 0.983 (0.896–1.079) | 1.049 (0.931–1.182) | 1.022 (0.928–1.124) | 0.944 (0.771–1.155) | 1.208 (0.794–1.838) | 0.956 (0.768–1.191) |
| Multivariable logistic regression (all predictors modelled simultaneously) | ||||||||
| Loop 5′ | Loop 3′ | Int-loop | mb-Loop | H-loop | b-Loop | One-bb | Stem | |
| OR (95%CI) | 1.083 (0.973–1.206) | 1.11 (0.979–1.259) | 1.067 0.943–1.207) | 1.112 (0.96–1.29) | 1.089 (0.971–1.222) | 1.024 (0.818–1.282) | 1.547 (0.963–2.484) | 1.08 (0.835–1.398) |