Fig. 6

Conservation of RNA editing between X. laevis and X. tropicalis. A Nucleotide identity of genomic loci in X. tropicalis that had been lifted over from our list of editing sites in X. laevis. B Nucleotide identity of genomic loci in X. laevis that had been lifted over from our list of editing sites in X. tropicalis. C Scatterplots showing the modification rates of curated X. laevis editing sites and the corresponding lifted over positions in X. tropicalis. Only sites found in the same genes or gene families in both frog species were plotted here. D Scatterplots showing the modification rates of curated X. tropicalis editing sites and the corresponding lifted over positions in X. laevis. Only sites found in the same genes or gene families in both frog species were plotted here. E Heatmap showing the editing patterns of sites that exhibited a difference in deamination rate of at least 10% between X. laevis and X. tropicalis in some developmental process. F ADAR motif of high-confidence coding sites in X. laevis. G ADAR motif of high-confidence coding sites in X. tropicalis. H Self-organizing map of editing rates in the MHT study. Each row is a different high-confidence coding site, while each column is a different developmental stage of X. laevis. I Self-organizing map of editing rates in the JBL study. Each row is a different high-confidence coding site, while each column is a different developmental stage of X. tropicalis. J High-confidence coding sites identified separately in X. laevis (XL) or X. tropicalis (XT) were mostly not found in the other species. The number of conserved sites is not identical between the two frog species because two homeologous genes (one on the L chromosome and one on the S chromosome) can be targeted in X. laevis for each gene that is edited in X. tropicalis. K The high-confidence list was expanded with coding sites that were filtered off due to isolation or the presence of other mismatch types, but there was still an overall lack of conservation in editing between X. laevis (XL) and X. tropicalis (XT). L Comparison of genes whose protein-coding regions were edited in X. laevis or X. tropicalis. M Alignment of partial METTL5 protein sequences from X. laevis and X. tropicalis, with the targeted amino acid residues boxed in black and the corresponding codon changes indicated below. The mettl5 gene was edited at four positions in X. laevis, but at only one position in X. tropicalis. N Alignment of partial WLS protein sequences from X. laevis and X. tropicalis, with the targeted amino acid residues boxed in black and the corresponding codon changes indicated below. The wls gene was edited at five positions in X. tropicalis, but at only two positions in X. laevis. For the fifth position, although its modification rate in X. laevis was comparable to that in X. tropicalis, it was not in the high-confidence list of coding sites for X. laevis because there were only two variant reads, which did not pass our threshold of three variant reads