4.6 Article

Codon Usage Bias Analysis in Macronuclear Genomes of Ciliated Protozoa

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms11071833

关键词

codon usage bias; ciliates; macronuclear genome; mutation pressure; natural selection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the macronuclear genome of ciliates and calculated several indices to investigate codon usage bias and its influencing factors. The results showed that ciliates preferred using codons ending with A or T, and codon usage bias was affected by gene mutation and natural selection.
Ciliated protozoa (ciliates) are unicellular eukaryotes, several of which are important model organisms for molecular biology research. Analyses of codon usage bias (CUB) of the macronuclear (MAC) genome of ciliates can promote a better understanding of the genetic mode and evolutionary history of these organisms and help optimize codons to improve gene editing efficiency in model ciliates. In this study, the following indices were calculated: the guanine-cytosine (GC) content, the frequency of the nucleotides at the third position of codons (T3, C3, A3, G3), the effective number of codons (ENc), GC content at the 3rd position of synonymous codons (GC3s), and the relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU). Parity rule 2 plot analysis, Neutrality plot analysis, ENc plot analysis, and correlation analysis were employed to explore the main influencing factors of CUB. The results showed that the GC content in the MAC genomes of each of 21 ciliate species, the genomes of which were relatively complete, was lower than 50%, and the base compositions of GC and GC3s were markedly distinct. Synonymous codon analysis revealed that the codons in most of the 21 ciliates ended with A or T and four codons were the general putative optimal codons. Collectively, our results indicated that most of the ciliates investigated preferred using the codons with anof AT-ending and that codon usage bias was affected by gene mutation and natural selection.

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