2017
DOI: 10.1007/s00705-017-3445-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genome dynamics and evolution of codon usage patterns in shrimp viruses

Abstract: We analysed the genomes and codon usage patterns of seven small (DNA and RNA) shrimp viruses. Effective number of codon (ENC) values indicated moderate (35 < ENC < 50) codon usage bias in shrimp viruses. Correlation analysis between GC compositions at non-synonymous codon and synonymous codon positions (GC1, 2 and GC3) as well as GC3 versus ENC curves indicated varying influences of mutational pressure on codon usage. The presence of deoptimized codons and host-antagonistic codon usage trends in shrimp viruses… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, both viral genome and host mRNA are anticipated to share some common features due to constraint induced by host factors and their coexistence in the same cytoplasmic cellular environment (Kapoor et al, ). Coincidence in common under‐ and over‐represented codons between the virus and host, as well as antagonistic trend, was observed in this study, similar to previous reports (Biswas et al, ; Tyagi et al, ). The coincidence in common under‐ and over‐represented codons between the virus and its host may increase the translational efficiency of the corresponding protein (Butt, Nasrullah, & Tong, ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, both viral genome and host mRNA are anticipated to share some common features due to constraint induced by host factors and their coexistence in the same cytoplasmic cellular environment (Kapoor et al, ). Coincidence in common under‐ and over‐represented codons between the virus and host, as well as antagonistic trend, was observed in this study, similar to previous reports (Biswas et al, ; Tyagi et al, ). The coincidence in common under‐ and over‐represented codons between the virus and its host may increase the translational efficiency of the corresponding protein (Butt, Nasrullah, & Tong, ).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The nucleotide composition at non‐synonymous and synonymous codon positions of RdRp and capsid of the nodavirus was analysed and compared in order to comprehend the properties and fundamental characteristic of the nodavirus genome. Due to the extreme divergence between RdRp and capsid of the mosinovirus (MoNV) that was reported recently (Domingo, Sheldon, & Perales, ; Schuster et al, ), the two RNA segments of the nodavirus were analysed separately in detail in the current analysis that is different from the previous studies (He & Teng, ; Kapoor, Simmonds, Lipkin, Zaidi, & Delwart, ; Schuster et al, ; Tyagi, Kumar, & Singh, ). The phylogenetic data classified MoNV as a novel member of alphanodavirus based on similar RdRp gene properties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The maximum and minimum average ENC values were observed for Streptophyta (ENC 51.6 ± 3.2) and Actinobacteria (ENC 31.6 ± 5.3), respectively. Using the convention of 40 < ENC ≤ 55 to determine the degree of codon usage bias, 71,77,78 it can be assumed that Hsp60 genes of 17 phyla are highly and moderately biased. The Hsp60 genes from Group 1 (Apicomplexa, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes) with AT-mutation pressure and Group 4 (Ascomycota, Proteobacteria, Basidiomycota, Chlorophyta, and Actinobacteria) with GCmutation pressure have a high level of expression.…”
Section: Almost All Hsp60 Genes Have Lower Enc Values Than Expectedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using the convention of 40 < ENC [?] 55 to determine the degree of codon usage bias 60,66,67 , it can be assumed that Hsp60 genes of 17 phyla are highly and moderately biased. The Hsp60 genes from Group 1 (Apicomplexa, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes) with AT-mutation pressure and Group 4 (Ascomycota, Proteobacteria, Basidiomycota, Chlorophyta, and Actinobacteria) with GC-mutation pressure have a high level of expression.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%