4.6 Article

Analysis of Codon Usage Patterns in Giardia duodenalis Based on Transcriptome Data from GiardiaDB

期刊

GENES
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes12081169

关键词

Giardia duodenalis; codon usage bias; transcriptome; optimal codon; evolution

资金

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019M651213]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31772732, 31672288]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study systematically analyzed the codon usage pattern of Giardia duodenalis, revealing that mutational pressure and natural selection play important roles in shaping its codon usage bias. The study provides useful insights into the mechanisms behind Giardia duodenalis' codon usage bias formation.
Giardia duodenalis, a flagellated parasitic protozoan, the most common cause of parasite-induced diarrheal diseases worldwide. Codon usage bias (CUB) is an important evolutionary character in most species. However, G. duodenalis CUB remains unclear. Thus, this study analyzes codon usage patterns to assess the restriction factors and obtain useful information in shaping G. duodenalis CUB. The neutrality analysis result indicates that G. duodenalis has a wide GC3 distribution, which significantly correlates with GC12. ENC-plot result-suggesting that most genes were close to the expected curve with only a few strayed away points. This indicates that mutational pressure and natural selection played an important role in the development of CUB. The Parity Rule 2 plot (PR2) result demonstrates that the usage of GC and AT was out of proportion. Interestingly, we identified 26 optimal codons in the G. duodenalis genome, ending with G or C. In addition, GC content, gene expression, and protein size also influence G. duodenalis CUB formation. This study systematically analyzes G. duodenalis codon usage pattern and clarifies the mechanisms of G. duodenalis CUB. These results will be very useful to identify new genes, molecular genetic manipulation, and study of G. duodenalis evolution.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据