CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.

Measure of synonymous codon usage diversity among genes in bacteria Export

BMC Bioinformatics, Vol. 10, No. 1. (2009), 167.

Citation Format

[Posts]

View FullText article


michaelbarton's tags for this article

codon-usage gc-content gene-expression

X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History

X Abstract

BACKGROUND:In many bacteria, intragenomic diversity in synonymous codon usage among genes has been reported. However, no quantitative attempt has been made to compare the diversity levels among different genomes. Here, we introduce a mean dissimilarity-based index (Dmean) for quantifying the level of diversity in synonymous codon usage among all genes within a genome.RESULTS:The application of Dmean to 268 bacterial genomes shows that in bacteria with extremely biased genomic G+C compositions there is little diversity in synonymous codon usage among genes. Furthermore, our findings contradict previous reports. For example, a low level of diversity in codon usage among genes has been reported for Helicobacter pylori, but based on Dmean, the diversity level of this species is higher than those of more than half of bacteria tested here. The discrepancies between our findings and previous reports are probably due to differences in the methods used for measuring codon usage diversity. CONCLUSIONS:We recommend that Dmean be used to measure the diversity level of codon usage among genes. This measure can be applied to other compositional features such as amino acid usage and dinucleotide relative abundance as a genomic signature.


X BibTeX record

X RIS record


Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.