title: GC-compositional strand bias around transcription start sites in plants and fungi.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A GC-compositional strand bias or GC-skew (=(C-G)/(C+G)), where C and G denote the numbers of cytosine and guanine residues, was recently reported near the transcription start sites (TSS) of Arabidopsis genes. However, it is unclear whether other eukaryotic species have equally prominent GC-skews, and the biological meaning of this trait remains unknown.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Our study confirmed a significant GC-skew (C > G) in the TSS of Oryza sativa (rice) genes. The full-length cDNAs and genomic sequences from Arabidopsis and rice were compared using statistical analyses. Despite marked differences in the G+C content around the TSS in the two plants, the degrees of bias were almost identical. Although slight GC-skew peaks, including opposite skews (C < G), were detected around the TSS of genes in human and Drosophila, they were qualitatively and quantitatively different from those identified in plants. However, plant-like GC-skew in regions upstream of the translation initiation sites (TIS) in some fungi was identified following analyses of the expressed sequence tags and/or genomic sequences from other species. On the basis of our dataset, we estimated that > 70 and 68% of Arabidopsis and rice genes, respectively, had a strong GC-skew (> 0.33) in a 100-bp window (that is, the number of C residues was more than double the number of G residues in a +/-100-bp window around the TSS). The mean GC-skew value in the TSS of highly-expressed genes in Arabidopsis was significantly greater than that of genes with low expression levels. Many of the GC-skew peaks were preferentially located near the TSS, so we examined the potential value of GC-skew as an index for TSS identification. Our results confirm that the GC-skew can be used to assist the TSS prediction in plant genomes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The GC-skew (C > G) around the TSS is strictly conserved between monocot and eudicot plants (ie. angiosperms in general), and a similar skew has been observed in some fungi. Highly-expressed Arabidopsis genes had overall a more marked GC-skew in the TSS compared to genes with low expression levels. We therefore propose that the GC-skew around the TSS in some plants and fungi is related to transcription. It might be caused by mutations during transcription initiation or the frequent use of transcription factor-biding sites having a strand preference. In addition, GC-skew is a good candidate index for TSS prediction in plant genomes, where there is a lack of correlation among CpG islands and genes.
authors.affiliation: Institute for Advanced Biosciences, Keio University, Tsuruoka, Yamagata 997-0035, Japan. fujimori@sfc.keio.ac.jp
authors.forename: Shigeo
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Fujimori
authors.forename: Takanori
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Washio
authors.forename: Masaru
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tomita
mesh_terms: D017360:Arabidopsis / Q000235:genetics*; D001482:Base Composition; D001483:Base Sequence; D018899:CpG Islands; D018076:DNA, Complementary / Q000378:metabolism; D015966:Gene Expression Regulation, Fungal; D018506:Gene Expression Regulation, Plant; D005800:Genes, Fungal; D017343:Genes, Plant; D016678:Genome; D018745:Genome, Plant; D008957:Models, Genetic; D015233:Models, Statistical; D009154:Mutation; D012275:Oryza / Q000235:genetics; D010944:Plants / Q000235:genetics; D014176:Protein Biosynthesis; D012372:ROC Curve; D024363:Transcription Initiation Site; D014158:Transcription, Genetic
chemical_list: D018076:DNA, Complementary
references.citation: Genome Res. 1998 Sep;8(9):967-74
references.pmid: 9750195
references.citation: Science. 2003 Jul 18;301(5631):376-9
references.pmid: 12869764
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2003 Jul;132(3):1162-76
references.pmid: 12857799
references.citation: Nature. 2002 Jun 20;417(6891):851-4
references.pmid: 12075352
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2001;17 Suppl 1:S90-6
references.pmid: 11472997
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Jan 1;29(1):159-64
references.pmid: 11125077
references.citation: Plant Physiol. 2002 Nov;130(3):1487-96
references.pmid: 12428013
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 1996 May;13(5):660-5
references.pmid: 8676740
references.citation: Genome Res. 1999 Sep;9(9):868-77
references.pmid: 10508846
references.citation: BMC Genomics. 2004 Jun 01;5(1):34
references.pmid: 15171795
references.citation: Nat Genet. 2003 Apr;33(4):514-7
references.pmid: 12612582
references.citation: Science. 1996 Apr 5;272(5258):107-9
references.pmid: 8600517
references.citation: Genome Res. 2003 Dec;13(12):2594-601
references.pmid: 14613976
references.citation: Genomics. 1994 Jul 15;22(2):327-35
references.pmid: 7806218
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Nov;22(11):1467-73
references.pmid: 15529174
references.citation: Nature. 2002 Jun 20;417(6891):797-8
references.pmid: 12075329
references.citation: Brief Bioinform. 2000 Sep;1(3):214-28
references.pmid: 11465033
references.citation: J Mol Biol. 1987 Jul 20;196(2):261-82
references.pmid: 3656447
references.citation: Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002 Jan;3(1):21-9
references.pmid: 11823795
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Jun;18(6):1147-50
references.pmid: 11371605
references.citation: Gene. 1999 Sep 30;238(1):65-77
references.pmid: 10570985
references.citation: Bioinformatics. 2003;19 Suppl 1:i313-4
references.pmid: 12855475