Skip to main content

Table 1 Evolutionary conservation of uORFs highlighted by Vilela and McCarthy [3]. Genes with conserved uORFs are shown in bold.

From: Identification of putative regulatory upstream ORFs in the yeast genome using heuristics and evolutionary conservation

Gene uORF conservation1 If predicted not to be functional, reason for this Evidence about functional role
CLN3 yes (1/1; 4/6)   [26]
GCN4 yes (4/4; 7/7)   [6]
INO2 no (0/1; 0/6) uORF too long  
PPR1 no (0/1; 0/6) uORF too close to main AUG  
SCO1 no (0/1; 0/5) uORF too close to main AUG [32]2
CPA1 yes (1/1; 5/5)   [4]
HAP4 yes (2/2; 4/4)   [43]3
LEU4 no (0/1; 0/7) uORF too close to main AUG  
TIF4631 yes (4/6; 4/6)   [31]3
YAP1 yes (1/1; 3/5)   [27]
YAP2 yes (2/2; 3/3)   [27]
CBS1 no (0/1; 0/5) uORF too close to main AUG [32]2
DCD1 no (0/1; 0/7) uORF too close to main AUG  
HOL1 yes (1/1; 4/4)   [29]
PET111 yes (3/4; 3/4)   [30]4
SCH9 no (0/1; 0/6) uORF too long (55 codons)  
  1. The STA1-3 genes mentioned by Vilela and McCarthy are not present in the standard S288c genome sequence and were not included in this analysis.
  2. 1 Numbers between parentheses denote: (number of uORFs conserved/total number of uORFs; number of species where uORFs are conserved/total number of species where orthologue could be identified)
  3. 2 Evidence against translational control by uORFs
  4. 3 Evidence for translation using an IRES mechanism
  5. 4 Pet111 controls translation of another mRNA, but no evidence for uORF control of PET111 expression
Back to article page

BMC Bioinformatics

ISSN: 1471-2105

Contact us