2. Ribosome footprinting

10. Not all RNAs encode proteins

11. Entire paper was written with existing data (but the data was originally generated by authors)

12. mRNA Translation (main steps)

13. Note 3’UTRs Ribosome + mRNA Also note that coding regions are highly conserved by a conservation score CSF Codon substitution frequency

14. Yet, lincRNAs look more like translated regions and 5’UTRs based on translational efficiency (TE = ribosome/mRNA)

15. Known classical non-coding RNAs have high translational efficiency

16. Here are some examples of known ncRNAS with high Translational efficiency

17. Ribosome Release Score (RRS)

18. Cutoff on RRS and Translation Efficiency Provide Better Separation

19. RSS separates coding regions
This is using open reading frames (ORFs) in each of these regions.

20. There are lincRNAs with high conservation and a high RSS score (do these code proteins?)

21. Why high TE for lincRNAs?
Reasons the authors give:
Non-ribosomal contamination
Seductive hypothesis in the discussion:
Translational machinery is always engaged with transcripts in the cytosol of the cell.
“Pervasive” engagement of the ribosome with transcripts.
This can be co-opted by evolution to create new protein-coding genes.