Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30082392›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Codon usage influences fitness through RNA toxicity.

Pragya Mittal, James Brindle, Julie Stephen, Joshua B Plotkin, Grzegorz Kudla

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 112 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparative Analysis of Codon Usage Bias in SixInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pragya MittalMedical Research Council Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, EH4 2XU Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
James BrindleMedical Research Council Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, EH4 2XU Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Julie StephenMedical Research Council Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, EH4 2XU Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Joshua B PlotkinDepartment of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Grzegorz KudlaMedical Research Council Human Genetics Unit, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, EH4 2XU Edinburgh, United Kingdom; gkudla@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7924-2744
Institute of Genetics and Cancer · GBUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00007/12Medical Research Council MC_UU_12018/23Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 097383Wellcome Trust 207507
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many organisms are subject to selective pressure that gives rise to unequal usage of synonymous codons, known as codon bias. To experimentally dissect the mechanisms of selection on synonymous sites, we expressed several hundred synonymous variants of the GFP gene in

Indexed as

MutationCodonEscherichia coliRNA, BacterialCodonRNA, Bacterialcodon usageexperimental evolutionRNAsynthetic biology

Identifiers

PMID30082392
PMCPMC6112741
OpenAlexW2806879747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.