Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(3)
He has also experimented with repetitive editing derived from remix and gif culture, like the montage he used to evoke Joseph Gordon-Levitt's cycle of self-abuse in porn comedy Don Jon.
The average length of non-repetitive editing boxes is 71 nt, which is shorter than that of Alu and non-Alu repetitive editing boxes (Table 1B).
However, the average A-to-I nucleotide conversion rate in non-repetitive editing boxes is about 51% of all As, which is higher than Alu and non-Alu repetitive editing boxes (Table 1B), suggesting the surprising result that promiscuous A-to-I editing can occur in non-repetitive regions.
Similar(57)
Although we could identify no consensus sequences in non-repetitive editing boxes, they are likely to form dsRNAs and the edited sites have similar 5′ neighbor preferences as reported recently for other ADAR1 substrates [ 28].
Interestingly, non-repetitive editing boxes exhibited even more striking differences than editing boxes of IRAlus among examined samples.
We further demonstrated that non-repetitive editing boxes could be promiscuously edited by ADAR1, independent of their adjacent IRAlus.
Our analysis also revealed that non-repetitive editing boxes could be promiscuously edited by ADAR1, independent of their adjacent IRAlus.
These results demonstrated that non-repetitive editing boxes alone can be edited by ADAR1, independent of adjacent IRAlus.
Although there were no consensus sequences in all non-repetitive editing boxes, we found that ADAR1 preferentially targets adenosines when the 5′ nearest neighbor is A ≈ U > C > G.
Moreover, knockdown of ADAR1 significantly reduced editing ratio of individual A-to-I sites in editing boxes, suggesting that editing in non-repetitive editing boxes is catalyzed by ADAR1.
Importantly, editing sites located in non-repetitive editing boxes were validated in multiple human cell lines using conventional PCR and Sanger sequencing and were proven to be catalyzed by ADAR1.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com