| Literature DB >> 26819552 |
Chengjun Zhang1, Hong Yang1, Huizhao Yang1.
Abstract
Alternative splicing (AS) is one of the most important ways to enhance the functional diversity of genes. Huge amounts of data have been produced by microarray, expressed sequence tag, and RNA-seq, and plenty of methods have been developed specifically for this task. The most frequently asked questions in previous research were as follows. What is the content rate of AS genes among the whole gene set? How many AS types are presented in the genome, and which type is dominant? How about the conservation ability of AS among different species? Which kinds of isoforms from some genes have the environmental response to help individual adaptation? Based on this background, we collected analysis results from 17 species to try to map out the landscape of AS studies in plants. We have noted the shortages of previous results, and we appeal to all scientists working in the AS field to make a standard protocol so that analyses between different projects are comparable.Entities:
Keywords: alternative splicing; comparative analyses; conservation ability; stress response
Year: 2016 PMID: 26819552 PMCID: PMC4721685 DOI: 10.4137/BBI.S33716
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioinform Biol Insights ISSN: 1177-9322
Figure 1Five basic modes of AS (drawing by Illustrator for Biological Sequences [IBS]59).
Figure 2AS may contribute to the fusion transcript (according to the figure in Zhang et al17, reproduced here under the terms of a CC-BY license. Redrawing by IBS59).
The AS rate and the dominant AS types in species (updated from Zhang et al.44).
| SPECIES | AS RATE (%) | INTRON RETENTION RATE (%) | EXON SKIPPING RATE (%) | REF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fly | 40 | – | – | 50 |
| 18.6 | 30.8 | 13.6 | 51 | |
| – | ~10 | ~32 | 52 | |
| 60.8 | ~11 | ~11.4 | 32 | |
| Human | 63 | 36 | – | 53 |
| – | 14.8 | 52 | 54 | |
| 32.1 | 15.8 | 28.8 | 51 | |
| – | <10 | ~42 | 52 | |
| 94 | ~1 | ~35 | 33 | |
| 95 | – | – | 9 | |
| 88 | 41 | – | 55 | |
| Rice | 8.1 | 55 | 55.0 | 51 |
| 21.2 | 53.5 | 13.8 | 12 | |
| 32.5 | 45.1 | 12.8 | 26 | |
| 48 | – | – | 34 | |
| Arabidopsis | 1.2 | – | 6.4 | 6 |
| 7~10 | 30.5 | 3.2 | 56 | |
| 11.6 | 44.8 | 15.5 | 7 | |
| 14.1 | 42.8 | 42.8 | 51 | |
| 21.8 | 56.1 | 8 | 12 | |
| 23.5 | 47.9 | 6.8 | 26 | |
| 42 | 64.1 | – | 14 | |
| – | ~30 | ~5 | 52 | |
| 61 | 40 | ~6.8 | 16 | |
| Soybean | 63 | 26.74 | 8.89 | 8 |
| Populous | 28.3 | 45 | 8.6 | 28 |
| 36 | 40 | 8 | 57 | |
| Eucalyptus | 20.7 | 33.9 | 10.5 | 28 |
| Physcomitrella patens | 47 | – | – | 42 |
| 49 | 49 | 1 | 41 | |
| Brachypodium distachyon | 6.3 | 55.5 | 5 | 58 |
| 42 | 36 | 9 | 59 | |
| Sorghum Bicolor | – | 41 | 2 | 20 |
| Lotus japonicus | 2.8 | 41.7 | 8.7 | 35 |
| Zea maysa | 40 | 58 | 39 | 21 |
| Vitis vinifera | 30 | 51 | 4.1 | 60 |
| Solanum lycopersicum | 10 | 55 | – | 22 |
| 10 | 53 | 3 | 31 | |
| Gossypium raimondii | 32 | 40 | 10 | 23 |
| Medicago truncatula | 9.6 | 51.3 | 10.7 | 35 |