ArticleFunctional & integrative genomics2024
Analysis of chloroplast genome characteristics and codon usage bias in 14 species of Annonaceae.
Article in Functional & integrative genomics, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Article
- Integrative chloroplast genomics of Polygonaceae: evolutionary dynamics, codon optimization, and phylogenetic resolution.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of morphology and chloroplast genomes in endangered plantFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Integrative chloroplast omics in citrus: computational insights into genomic structural adaptation and phylogenetic relationships from 35 species.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Complete Chloroplast Genomes of EightCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- Phylogeny and evolutionary dynamics of the Rubia genus based on the chloroplast genome of Rubia tibetica.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Characterization of the complete chloroplast genome and comparative analysis of the phylogeny and codon usage bias of three Yunnan wild rice species.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
For the study of species evolution, chloroplast gene expression, and transformation, the chloroplast genome is an invaluable resource. Codon usage bias (CUB) analysis is a tool that is utilized to improve gene expression and investigate evolutionary connections in genetic transformation. In this study, we analysed chloroplast genome differences, codon usage patterns and the sources of variation on CUB in 14 Annonaceae species using bioinformatics tools. The study showed that there was a significant variation in both gene sizes and numbers between the 14 species, but conservation was still maintained. It's worth noting that there were noticeable differences in the IR/SC sector boundary and the types of SSRs among the 14 species. The mono-nucleotide repeat type was the most common, with A/T repeats being more prevalent than G/C repeats. Among the different types of repeats, forward and palindromic repeats were the most abundant, followed by reverse repeats, and complement repeats were relatively rare. Codon composition analysis revealed that all 14 species had a frequency of GC lower than 50%. Additionally, it was observed that the proteins in-coding sequences of chloroplast genes tend to end with A/T at the third codon position. Among these species, 21 codons exhibited bias (RSCU > 1), and there were 8 high-frequency (HF) codons and 5 optimal codons that were identical across the species. According to the ENC-plot and Neutrality plot analysis, natural selection had less impact on the CUB of A. muricate and A. reticulata. Based on the PR2-plot, it was evident that base G had a higher frequency than C, and T had a higher frequency A. The correspondence analysis (COA) revealed that codon usage patterns different in Annonaceae.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38797780What 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.