ArticleInfection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases2020
Comparative analysis of protein synthesis rate in COVID-19 with other human coronaviruses.
Article in Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- EIOFX-DT: Leveraging graph centrality metrics for feature extraction and classification of viral genetic sequences.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Article
- Co-expression analysis to identify key modules and hub genes associated with COVID-19 in platelets.BMC medical genomics · 2022Article
- Surface adhesion of viruses and bacteria: Defend only and/orMRS advances · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The genetic code contains information that impacts the efficiency and rate of translation. Translation elongation plays a crucial role in determining the composition of the proteome, errors within a protein contributes towards disease processes. It is important to analyze the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) at the codon level to find similarities and variations in hosts to compare with other human coronavirus (CoVs). This requires a comparative and comprehensive study of various human and zoonotic nature CoVs relating to codon usage bias, relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU), proportions of slow codons, and slow di-codons, the effective number of codons (ENC), mutation bias, codon adaptation index (CAI), and codon frequencies. In this work, seven different CoVs were analyzed to determine the protein synthesis rate and the adaptation of these viruses to the host cell. The result reveals that the proportions of slow codons and slow di-codons in human host of 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV found to be similar and very less compared to the other five coronavirus types, which suggest that the 2019-nCoV and SARS-CoV have faster protein synthesis rate. Zoonotic CoVs have high RSCU and codon adaptation index than human CoVs which implies the high translation rate in zoonotic viruses. All CoVs have more AT% than GC% in genetic codon compositions. The average ENC values of seven CoVs ranged between 38.36 and 49.55, which implies the CoVs are highly conserved and are easily adapted to host cells. The mutation rate of 2019-nCoV is comparatively less than MERS-CoV and NL63 that shows an evidence for genetic diversity. Host-specific codon composition analysis portrays the relation between viral host sequences and the capability of novel virus replication in host cells. Moreover, the analysis provides useful measures for evaluating a virus-host adaptation, transmission potential of novel viruses, and thus contributes to the strategies of anti-viral drug design.
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.