ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2010
Certain non-standard coding tables appear to be more robust to error than the standard genetic code.
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural Selection Drives Codon Usage Bias in the Mitochondrial Genome ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Genetic code evolution reveals the neutral emergence of mutational robustness, and information as an evolutionary constraint.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
- An alternative look at code evolution: using non-canonical codes to evaluate adaptive and historic models for the origin of the genetic code.Journal of molecular evolution · 2013Article
- Complex phylogenetic distribution of a non-canonical genetic code in green algae.BMC evolutionary biology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the identification of the Standard Coding Table as a "universal" method to translate genetic information into amino acids, exceptions to this rule have been reported, and to date there are nearly 20 alternative genetic coding tables deployed by either nuclear genomes or organelles of organisms. Why are these codes still in use and why are new codon reassignments occurring? This present study aims to provide a new method to address these questions and to analyze whether these alternative codes present any advantages or disadvantages to the organisms or organelles in terms of robustness to error. We show that two of the alternative coding tables, The Ciliate, Dasycladacean and Hexamita Nuclear Code (CDH) and The Flatworm Mitochondrial Code (FMC), exhibit an advantage, while others such as The Yeast Mitochondrial Code (YMC) are at a significant disadvantage. We propose that the Standard Code is likely to have emerged as a "local minimum" and that the "coding landscape" is still being searched for a "global" minimum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.