Table 1

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

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)


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.

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)

2 Evidence against translational control by uORFs

3 Evidence for translation using an IRES mechanism

4 Pet111 controls translation of another mRNA, but no evidence for uORF control of PET111 expression

Cvijović et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2007 8:295   doi:10.1186/1471-2105-8-295