2006
DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msl148
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predicting Gene Expression Level from Codon Usage Bias

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
57
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
57
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Slight differences were also found for the His CAC codon usage, which was 35 % in the whole genome and 41 % in highly transcribed transposon insertions. However, these differences are very small and support previous computer analyses indicating that highly expressed genes of several species, including M. genitalium, have no discernible differences in codon usage compared to other genes (Henry & Sharp, 2007).…”
Section: Monitoring Gene Expression Level Using the Promoterless Vectorsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Slight differences were also found for the His CAC codon usage, which was 35 % in the whole genome and 41 % in highly transcribed transposon insertions. However, these differences are very small and support previous computer analyses indicating that highly expressed genes of several species, including M. genitalium, have no discernible differences in codon usage compared to other genes (Henry & Sharp, 2007).…”
Section: Monitoring Gene Expression Level Using the Promoterless Vectorsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Codon usage is compared between a set of 40 highly expressed genes (high; see Sharp et al 2005) and the genome as a whole (all); the data are relative synonymous codon usage values (the ratio of the observed number to that expected if all codons for an amino acid were used equally). Nineteen codons occurring at significantly higher frequencies (see Henry & Sharp 2007) replicated by different mechanisms with different mutation rates (Fijalkowska et al 1998), which could lead to the observed differences in base composition. Alternatively, since there is an excess of genes located on the leading strand in many bacteria (Brewer 1988;Tillier & Collins 2000), biases in transcriptioncoupled repair could lead to a skew between the strands in nucleotide composition (Francino et al 1996).…”
Section: Variation In Codon Usage Bias Among Bacteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Optimal codons were identified as those occurring significantly more frequently in the HE genes than across all genes, using x 2 -tests with sequential Bonferroni correction [10]. Codon adaptation index (CAI; [18]) values were computed using codon fitness values from the HE gene set.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Karlin et al [9] used codon-usage analyses to predict HE genes in 19 archaeal genomes. However, their approach (i) assumed translational selection without first testing for its presence and (ii) is expected to give anomalous results, even in species where selection has shaped codon usage [10]. Some Archaea have been included in larger analyses mainly focused on genomes from Bacteria.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%