ArticleJournal of the Royal Society, Interface2018
A novel framework for evaluating the performance of codon usage bias metrics.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relaxed Purifying Selection is Associated with an Accumulation of Transposable Elements in Flies.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Codon Optimization Tools: Advancing toward a Multi-Criteria Framework for Synthetic Gene Design.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Article
- The protein domains of vertebrate species in which selection is more effective have greater intrinsic structural disorder.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Translation Comes First: Ancient and Convergent Selection of Codon Usage Bias Across Prokaryotic Genomes.Journal of molecular evolution · 2022Article
- Codon-based indices for modeling gene expression and transcript evolution.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The unequal utilization of synonymous codons affects numerous cellular processes including translation rates, protein folding and mRNA degradation. In order to understand the biological impact of variable codon usage bias (CUB) between genes and genomes, it is crucial to be able to accurately measure CUB for a given sequence. A large number of metrics have been developed for this purpose, but there is currently no way of systematically testing the accuracy of individual metrics or knowing whether metrics provide consistent results. This lack of standardization can result in false-positive and false-negative findings if underpowered or inaccurate metrics are applied as tools for discovery. Here, we show that the choice of CUB metric impacts both the significance and measured effect sizes in numerous empirical datasets, raising questions about the generality of findings in published research. To bring about standardization, we developed a novel method to create synthetic protein-coding DNA sequences according to different models of codon usage. We use these benchmark sequences to identify the most accurate and robust metrics with regard to sequence length, GC content and amino acid heterogeneity. Finally, we show how our benchmark can aid the development of new metrics by providing feedback on its performance compared to the state of the art.
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.