| Range |
~4e-6 error/site
|
| Organism |
Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans |
| Reference |
Gout JF, Thomas WK, Smith Z, Okamoto K, Lynch M. Large-scale detection of in vivo transcription errors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Nov 12 110(46):18584-9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1309843110. abstract & p.18586 right column 2nd paragraph & p.18588 left column 3rd paragraphPubMed ID24167253
|
| Method |
P.18588 left column top paragraph: "To accurately identify transcription errors in RNA-seq data, [researchers] developed a unique cDNA library preparation technique. [They] start by tagging fragmented mRNAs at their 5' ends with bar codes made of random 8-mers (Fig. 1A). The tagged RNA fragments are then attached to beads and reverse transcribed three times (Fig. 1B). After
each round of reverse transcription, the newly generated cDNAs are washed away (Fig. 1C) and characterized by Illumina paired-end sequencing. To simplify the following discussion, [they] denote
a series of reads originating from a unique molecule of fragmented mRNA as a family. Two reads are considered as belonging to the same family if they share the same bar code and have identical 5' and 3' breakpoints introduced during the process
of mRNA fragmentation." |
| Comments |
P.18586 right column 2nd paragraph: "Although further in-depth analysis may reveal significant differences between these three strains, [researchers'] results indicate that their transcription error rates are similar enough that the combined data from all three strains should be representative of the overall C. elegans transcription error rate. This leads to an overall transcription error rate estimate of 4.1×10^-6 (±8.8×10^-7, 95% confidence interval) per site, which is about one order of magnitude lower than most previously reported transcription error rates (ref 21 Ninio 1991 PMID 1752431) but close to the lower estimates obtained from in vitro analysis of wheat germ RNA polymerase II (ref 17 de Mercoyrol et al. 1992 PMID 1587282)." |
| Entered by |
Uri M |
| ID |
111144 |