Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29155926›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2017

Codon usage and codon pair patterns in non-grass monocot genomes.

Purabi Mazumdar, RofinaYasmin Binti Othman, Katharina Mebus, N Ramakrishnan, Jennifer Ann Harikrishna

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparative Genomics ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Purabi MazumdarCentre for Research in Biotechnology for Agriculture, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
RofinaYasmin Binti OthmanCentre for Research in Biotechnology for Agriculture, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Katharina MebusCentre for Research in Biotechnology for Agriculture, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
N RamakrishnanElectrical and Computer System Engineering, School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Malaysia.
Jennifer Ann HarikrishnaCentre for Research in Biotechnology for Agriculture, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
University of Malaya · MYMonash University Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsStudies on codon usage in monocots have focused on grasses, and observed patterns of this taxon were generalized to all monocot species. Here, non-grass monocot species were analysed to investigate the differences between grass and non-grass monocots.

methodsFirst, studies of codon usage in monocots were reviewed. The current information was then extended regarding codon usage, as well as codon-pair context bias, using four completely sequenced non-grass monocot genomes (Musa acuminata, Musa balbisiana, Phoenix dactylifera and Spirodela polyrhiza) for which comparable transcriptome datasets are available. Measurements were taken regarding relative synonymous codon usage, effective number of codons, derived optimal codon and GC content and then the relationships investigated to infer the underlying evolutionary forces. KEY

resultsThe research identified optimal codons, rare codons and preferred codon-pair context in the non-grass monocot species studied. In contrast to the bimodal distribution of GC3 (GC content in third codon position) in grasses, non-grass monocots showed a unimodal distribution. Disproportionate use of G and C (and of A and T) in two- and four-codon amino acids detected in the analysis rules out the mutational bias hypothesis as an explanation of genomic variation in GC content. There was found to be a positive relationship between CAI (codon adaptation index; predicts the level of expression of a gene) and GC3. In addition, a strong correlation was observed between coding and genomic GC content and negative correlation of GC3 with gene length, indicating a strong impact of GC-biased gene conversion (gBGC) in shaping codon usage and nucleotide composition in non-grass monocots.

conclusionOptimal codons in these non-grass monocots show a preference for G/C in the third codon position. These results support the concept that codon usage and nucleotide composition in non-grass monocots are mainly driven by gBGC.

Indexed as

Genetic TechniquesGenome, PlantTranscriptomeAraceaeCodonMusaPhoeniceaeCodonbananacodon-pair contextCodon usagedate palmGC3 distributionGC contentnon-grass monocots

Identifiers

PMID29155926
PMCPMC5710610
OpenAlexW2770695102

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.