The genetic robustness of RNA and protein from evolutionary, structural and functional perspectives
Coray, D. S.; Sibaeva, N.; McGimpsey, S.; Gardner, P. P.
Show abstract
The reactions of functional molecules like proteins and RNAs to mutation affect both host cell viability and biomolecular evolution. These molecules are considered robust if function is maintained despite mutations. Proteins and RNAs have different structural and functional characteristics that affect their robustness, and to date, comparisons between them have been theoretical. In this work, we test the relative mutational robustness of RNA and protein pairs using three approaches: evolutionary, structural, and functional. We compare the nucleotide diversities of functional RNAs with those of matched proteins. Across different levels of conservation, we found the nucleotide-level variations between the biomolecules largely overlapped, with proteins generally supporting more variation than matched RNAs. We then directly tested the robustness of the protein and RNA pairs with in vitro and in silico mutagenesis of their respective genes. The in silico experiments showed that proteins and RNAs reacted similarly to point mutations and insertions or deletions, yet proteins are slightly more robust on average than RNAs. In vitro, mutated fluorescent RNAs retained greater levels of function than the proteins. Overall this suggests that proteins and RNAs have remarkably similar degrees of robustness, with the average protein having moderately higher robustness than RNA as a group.\n\nSignificance StatementThe ability of proteins and non-coding RNAs to maintain function despite mutations in their respective genes is known as mutational robustness. Robustness impacts how molecules maintain and change phenotypes, which has a bearing on the evolution and the origin of life as well as influencing modern biotechnology. Both protein and RNA have mechanisms that allow them to absorb DNA-level changes. Proteins have a redundant genetic code and non-coding RNAs can maintain structure and function through flexible base-pairing possibilities. The few theoretical treatments comparing protein and RNA robustness differ in their conclusions. In this experimental comparison of protein and RNA, we find that they have remarkably similar degrees of overall genetic robustness.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Goldilocks and RNA: Where Mg2+ concentration is just right 96%
- Cotranscriptional RNA strand exchange underlies the gene regulation mechanism in a purine-sensing transcriptional riboswitch 96%
- Structural and functional clues challenge the hypothesis that the yjdF riboswitch is natively regulated through broad recognition of azaaromatic compounds 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Accurate in silico predictions of modified RNA interactions to a prototypical RNA-binding protein with {lambda}-dynamics 96%
- Molecular basis for the distinct cellular functions of the Lsm1-7 and Lsm2-8 complexes 95%
- Scanning mutagenesis of RNA-binding protein ProQ reveals a quality control role for the Lon protease 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Accurate detection of RNA stem-loops in structurome data reveals widespread association with protein binding sites 95%
- Anticodon sequence determines the impact of mistranslating tRNAAla variants 94%
- Structure of S. pombe telomerase protein Pof8 C-terminal domain is an xRRM conserved among LARP7 proteins 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- RNA Modifications and Prp24 Coordinate Lsm2-8 Binding Dynamics during S. cerevisiae U6 snRNP Assembly 95%
- tRNA m1G9 modification depends on substrate-specific RNA conformational changes induced by the methyltransferase Trm10 95%
- Regulation of Steady State Ribosomal Transcription in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: Intersection of Sigma Subunits, Superhelicity, and Transcription Factors. 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.