Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34025951›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2021

Codon-based indices for modeling gene expression and transcript evolution.

Shir Bahiri-Elitzur, Tamir Tuller

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shir Bahiri-ElitzurDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Tamir TullerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Tel Aviv University · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Codon usage bias (CUB) refers to the phenomena that synonymous codons are used in different frequencies in most genes and organisms. The general assumption is that codon biases reflect a balance between mutational biases and natural selection. Today we understand that the codon content is related and can affect all gene expression steps. Starting from the 1980s, codon-based indices have been used for answering different questions in all biomedical fields, including systems biology, agriculture, medicine, and biotechnology. In general, codon usage bias indices weigh each codon or a small set of codons to estimate the fitting of a certain coding sequence to a certain phenomenon (e.g., bias in codons, adaptation to the tRNA pool, frequencies of certain codons, transcription elongation speed, etc.) and are usually easy to implement. Today there are dozens of such indices; thus, this paper aims to review and compare the different codon usage bias indices, their applications, and advantages. In addition, we perform analysis that demonstrates that most indices tend to correlate even though they aim to capture different aspects. Due to the centrality of codon usage bias on different gene expression steps, it is important to keep developing new indices that can capture additional aspects that are not modeled with the current indices.

Indexed as

Codon usage biasGene expressionTranscript evolution

Identifiers

PMID34025951
PMCPMC8122159
OpenAlexW3152698768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.