ArticlePLoS genetics2019
Variation and selection on codon usage bias across an entire subphylum.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2019. 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 66 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
66 citing papers in PubMed, 120 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Chloroplast Genomes Reveals Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetic Relationships inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Mitogenomic and Ecological Perspectives on the Wide-Ridged Indo-Pacific Finless PorpoiseEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- System level identification and multidimensional analysis of hub genes reveal complex regulatory networks underlying human iPSC differentiation into motor neurons.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Genomic distribution characteristics and interspecific differences of microsatellite landscapes in Felidae.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- GGAR: gradient guided adaptive regularization enhances deep learning classification of brassica species using codon usage bias.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Hidden Diversity in Yeast tRNAs: Comparative Genomics and Modification Mapping in a Eukaryotic Subphylum.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Comparative mitogenomics of kingdom Fungi - evolutionary insights and metagenomic applications.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Codon usage bias and molecular evolution ofFrontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Patterns and drivers of genome-wide codon usage bias in the fungal order Sordariales.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2025Article
- A Recent Lineage Split inEcology and evolution · 2025Article
- Macroevolutionary changes in natural selection on codon usage reflect evolution of the tRNA pool across a budding yeast subphylum.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Characterization and Analysis of the Complete Mitochondrial Genome ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- The evolution and convergence of mutation spectra across mammals.Communications biology · 2025Article
- The complete mitochondrial genome of Sinojackia microcarpa: evolutionary insights and gene transfer.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Lost in translation: conserved amino acid usage despite extreme codon bias in foraminifera.mBio · 2025Article
- Complete mitogenome characteristics and phylogenetic analysis of traditional Chinese medicinal plant Tinospora sagittata (Oliv.) Gagnep. from the Menispermaceae family.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Complete mitochondrial genome assembly and comparative analysis of Colocasia esculenta.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- Genomic factors shaping codon usage across the Saccharomycotina subphylum.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Article
- Selection on synonymous codon usage in soybean (Glycine max) WRKY genes.Scientific reports · 2024Article
6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Variation in synonymous codon usage is abundant across multiple levels of organization: between codons of an amino acid, between genes in a genome, and between genomes of different species. It is now well understood that variation in synonymous codon usage is influenced by mutational bias coupled with both natural selection for translational efficiency and genetic drift, but how these processes shape patterns of codon usage bias across entire lineages remains unexplored. To address this question, we used a rich genomic data set of 327 species that covers nearly one third of the known biodiversity of the budding yeast subphylum Saccharomycotina. We found that, while genome-wide relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) for all codons was highly correlated with the GC content of the third codon position (GC3), the usage of codons for the amino acids proline, arginine, and glycine was inconsistent with the neutral expectation where mutational bias coupled with genetic drift drive codon usage. Examination between genes' effective numbers of codons and their GC3 contents in individual genomes revealed that nearly a quarter of genes (381,174/1,683,203; 23%), as well as most genomes (308/327; 94%), significantly deviate from the neutral expectation. Finally, by evaluating the imprint of translational selection on codon usage, measured as the degree to which genes' adaptiveness to the tRNA pool were correlated with selective pressure, we show that translational selection is widespread in budding yeast genomes (264/327; 81%). These results suggest that the contribution of translational selection and drift to patterns of synonymous codon usage across budding yeasts varies across codons, genes, and genomes; whereas drift is the primary driver of global codon usage across the subphylum, the codon bias of large numbers of genes in the majority of genomes is influenced by translational selection.
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.