Evidence map›Paper›PMID 2762118›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research1989

Codon usage and gene expression level in Dictyostelium discoideum: highly expressed genes do 'prefer' optimal codons.

P M Sharp, K M Devine

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 1989. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Dinucleotide preferences underlie apparent codon preference reversals in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Analysis of codon usage bias of chloroplast genomes inPhysiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

P M SharpDepartment of Genetics, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
K M Devine
Trinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Codon usage patterns in the slime mould Dictyostelium discoideum have been re-examined (a total of 58 genes have been analysed). Considering the extreme A + T-richness of this genome (G + C = 22%), there is a surprising degree of codon usage variation among genes. For example, G + C content at silent sites varies from less than 10% to greater than 30%. It was previously suggested [Warrick, H.M. and Spudich, J.A. (1988) Nucleic Acids Res. 16: 6617-6635] that highly expressed genes contain fewer 'optimal' codons than genes expressed at lower levels. However, it appears that the optimal codons were misidentified. Multivariate statistical analysis shows that the greatest variation among genes is in relative usage of a particular subset of codons (about one per amino acid), many of which are C-ending. We have identified these as optimal codons, since (i) their frequency is positively correlated with gene expression level, and (ii) there is a strong mutation bias in this genome towards A and T nucleotides. Thus, codon usage in D. discoideum can be explained by a balance between the forces of mutational bias and translational selection.

Indexed as

Genes, FungalTranscription, GeneticCodonDictyosteliumGenesInformation SystemsRNA, MessengerCodonRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID2762118
PMCPMC318092
OpenAlexW2035945428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.