ArticleMicroorganisms2026
Unintended Creation or Insertion of Antisense Promoter Motifs During Codon Optimization: A Cyber-Biosecurity Risk.
Article in Microorganisms, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Codon optimization is a cornerstone technique in synthetic biology and biotechnological production, aimed at enhancing heterologous protein expression through synonymous codon substitutions. While optimization traditionally focuses on forward-strand translation efficiency, its impact on the complementary DNA strand is not always carefully examined. In this study, we investigate whether codon optimization inadvertently introduces antisense motifs, specifically bacterial antisense promoter (e.g., "TATAAT"), and whether such motifs can be silently inserted into coding sequences on purpose without altering protein output. We developed a computational pipeline that (i) scans optimized sequences for antisense motifs. These could be either natural or synthetic unintended motifs; (ii) implements a silent insertion algorithm that preserves amino acid sequence; and (iii) evaluates insertion feasibility across a large genomic dataset. These components can also lead to useful scanning of synthetic sequences, before they are synthesized or ordered. It has the potential to save a great deal of time and money that might be spent in wet labs that are using the wrong sequences. Their experiments often fail due to predictable reasons, while these failures can be avoided using the software (SW) we developed, which is published here as an open source for academic and industrial usage. In a dataset of 484,741 protein-coding sequences, only 4.8% naturally contained the motif, yet 77.28% of motif-free sequences permitted silent insertions. We extend these findings with codon bias analysis, derive analytical bounds for insertion complexity, and propose computational defense strategies. These results uncover a novel cyber-biosecurity vulnerability in DNA design pipelines, emphasizing the need for bi-directional screening in codon optimization tools.
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.