ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2020
Network analysis of synonymous codon usage.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2020. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unavailability of experimental 3D structural data on protein folding dynamics and necessity for a new generation of structure prediction methods in this context.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Prognostic importance of splicing-triggered aberrations of protein complex interfaces in cancer.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Multi-layer sequential network analysis improves protein 3D structural classification.Proteins · 2022Article
- Towards future directions in data-integrative supervised prediction of human aging-related genes.Bioinformatics advances · 2022Article
- A Code Within a Code: How Codons Fine-Tune Protein Folding in the Cell.Biochemistry. Biokhimiia · 2021Review
- Centrality Measures in Residue Interaction Networks to Highlight Amino Acids in Protein-Protein Binding.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
motivationMost amino acids are encoded by multiple synonymous codons, some of which are used more rarely than others. Analyses of positions of such rare codons in protein sequences revealed that rare codons can impact co-translational protein folding and that positions of some rare codons are evolutionarily conserved. Analyses of their positions in protein 3-dimensional structures, which are richer in biochemical information than sequences alone, might further explain the role of rare codons in protein folding.
resultsWe model protein structures as networks and use network centrality to measure the structural position of an amino acid. We first validate that amino acids buried within the structural core are network-central, and those on the surface are not. Then, we study potential differences between network centralities and thus structural positions of amino acids encoded by conserved rare, non-conserved rare and commonly used codons. We find that in 84% of proteins, the three codon categories occupy significantly different structural positions. We examine protein groups showing different codon centrality trends, i.e. different relationships between structural positions of the three codon categories. We see several cases of all proteins from our data with some structural or functional property being in the same group. Also, we see a case of all proteins in some group having the same property. Our work shows that codon usage is linked to the final protein structure and thus possibly to co-translational protein folding. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: https://nd.edu/∼cone/CodonUsage/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.