ArticleViruses2022
Comprehensive Analysis of Codon Usage Patterns in Chinese Porcine Circoviruses Based on Their Major Protein-Coding Sequences.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contrasting genome composition and codon usage inVirus evolution · 2026Article
- Review
- Systematic analysis of the codon usage patterns of African swine fever virus genome coding sequences reveals its host adaptation phenotype.Microbial genomics · 2024Article
- Codon-optimization in gene therapy: promises, prospects and challenges.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Article
- Identification and characterization of codon usage pattern and influencing factors in HFRS-causing hantaviruses.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Detection of Porcine Circovirus 1/2/3 and Genetic Analysis of Porcine Circovirus 2 in Wild Boar from Jiangxi Province of China.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Codon usage of host-specific P genotypes (VP4) in group A rotavirus.BMC genomics · 2022Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Porcine circoviruses (PCVs) are distributed in swine herds worldwide and represent a threat to the health of domestic pigs and the profits of the swine industry. Currently, four PCV species, including PCV-1, PCV-2, PCV-3 and PCV-4, have been identified in China. Considering the ubiquitous characteristic of PCVs, the new emerged PCV-4 and the large scale of swine breeding in China, an overall analysis on codon usage bias for Chinese PCV sequences was performed by using the major proteins coding sequences (ORF1 and ORF2) to better understand the relationship of these viruses with their host. The data from genome nucleotide frequency composition and relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) analysis revealed an overrepresentation of AT pair and the existence of a certain codon usage bias in all PCVs. However, the values of an effective number of codons (ENC) revealed that the bias was of low magnitude. Principal component analysis, ENC-plot, parity rule two analysis and correlation analysis suggested that natural selection and mutation pressure were both involved in the shaping of the codon usage patterns of PCVs. However, a neutrality plot revealed a stronger effect of natural selection than mutation pressure on codon usage patterns. Good host adaptation was also shown by the codon adaptation index analysis for all these viruses. Interestingly, obtained data suggest that PCV-4 might be more adapted to its host compared to other PCVs. The present study obtained insights into the codon usage pattern of PCVs based on ORF1 and ORF2, which further helps the understanding the molecular evolution of these swine viruses.
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.