Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8005445›Full record

ArticleGenetics1994

Synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster: natural selection and translational accuracy.

H Akashi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 367 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
367citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

367 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Translation accuracy in E. coli.Nucleic acids research · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Mitochondrial Genome ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Estimating the evolutionary fitness of specific synonymous codon changes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Sex-biased duplicates are rapidly generated duringbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

307 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

H AkashiDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, Illinois 60637.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

I present evidence that natural selection biases synonymous codon usage to enhance the accuracy of protein synthesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Since the fitness cost of a translational misincorporation will depend on how the amino acid substitution affects protein function, selection for translational accuracy predicts an association between codon usage in DNA and functional constraint at the protein level. The frequency of preferred codons is significantly higher at codons conserved for amino acids than at nonconserved codons in 38 genes compared between D. melanogaster and Drosophila virilis or Drosophila pseudoobscura (Z = 5.93, P < 10(-6)). Preferred codon usage is also significantly higher in putative zinc-finger and homeodomain regions than in the rest of 28 D. melanogaster transcription factor encoding genes (Z = 8.38, P < 10(-6)). Mutational alternatives (within-gene differences in mutation rates, amino acid changes altering codon preference states, and doublet mutations at adjacent bases) do not appear to explain this association between synonymous codon usage and amino acid constraint.

Indexed as

Protein BiosynthesisSelection, GeneticAnimalsBase SequenceCodonDrosophilaDrosophila melanogasterGenes, InsectSpecies SpecificityTranscription FactorsCodonTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID8005445
PMCPMC1205897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.