Ribosomal RNA oligonucleotide cataloguing compares organisms through collections of short sequences obtained from ribosomal RNA. Instead of determining one complete modern sequence, investigators generated fragments, identified their sequences and compared which longer fragments were shared. The resulting catalog supplied molecular evidence about relationships beyond external appearance.
The 1977 Carl R. Woese and George E. Fox paper describes digestion of small-subunit ribosomal RNA with ribonuclease T1, followed by separation of the products using two-dimensional electrophoresis. Sequencing the resulting oligonucleotides produced a catalog characteristic of the examined material. Comparing catalogs helped establish the distinct position of the methanogenic organisms discussed in the paper. This was an RNA-fragment experiment, not a modern amplified-marker survey.[ref]
Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms by Carl R. Woese and George E. Fox. p.5089, Table1 legend: digestion, fingerprint separation, sequencing and catalog comparisons; Abstract and Discussion: phylogenetic interpretation
The RNA oligonucleotide association coefficient used nucleotide counts in cataloged sequences of six or more residues:Here and count nucleotides represented by the eligible fragments in the respective catalogs, while counts those represented in their shared portion. It is therefore not simply the fraction of fragment labels found in common, nor the percentage identity of a complete aligned RNA.[ref]
Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms by Carl R. Woese and George E. Fox. p.5089, Table1 legend: definition of the association coefficient and hexamer-or-larger restriction
For an original accounting example, let , and . Then . A catalog with fewer recorded nucleotide residues can share the same amount of material while giving a different normalized comparison. Agreement in short fragments alone also need not imply identical full sequences.
The scientific advance was a reproducible molecular comparison usable across morphologically different microbes. Its interpretation still depended on the marker, sampling and method. A catalog similarity supplies evidence for analysis in phylogenetics, not a complete reconstruction of every gene, a direct date of divergence or a guarantee that two organisms have the same physiology.
The RNA oligonucleotide association coefficient measures the overlap of two catalogs produced through ribosomal RNA oligonucleotide cataloguing, weighting the retained shared fragments by their nucleotide content. In the 1977 comparison, catalogued sequences had at least six residues, andwhere count nucleotide residues represented in the two eligible catalogs and counts those represented in their shared portion. It is a catalog-overlap statistic, not the percentage identity of a complete sequence alignment.[ref]
Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms by Carl R. Woese and George E. Fox. p.5089, Table1 legend: association coefficient, nucleotide counts and hexamer-or-larger cutoff
An original example uses distinct fragment labels with specified lengths. CatalogA contains ; catalogB contains . The subscripts denote nucleotide counts, and differently named fragments are different sequences. ThusCounting only matched labels would instead give two shared labels out of three per catalog, producing . The difference exposes the effect of weighting: a shared eight-residue fragment contributes more than a shared six-residue fragment.
For a nonzero denominator, gives . A useful equivalent form isThe numerator in the subtracted fraction represents the catalog material outside the overlap under this counting model. If both catalogs are empty, the original formula has denominator zero; assigning a value would require an extra convention.
The coefficient is also sensitive to catalog coverage. Add the same new six-residue fragment to both example catalogs: the totals become30 and26, with20 shared, so the coefficient rises to . Add it only toA instead, and the coefficient is . These constructed changes alter the statistic without specifying any new evolutionary history.
The original ribosomal RNA oligonucleotide cataloguing experiments used comparisons of this kind as evidence for phylogenetics. Turning a similarity into a particular phylogenetic tree or a divergence date needs additional assumptions and evidence. The statistic itself records the specified molecular overlap.[ref]
Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms by Carl R. Woese and George E. Fox. Abstract and Table1: molecular comparison and phylogenetic interpretation
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.