| Title |
The genetic code in mitochondria and chloroplasts
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, December 1990
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf01936921 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. H. Jukes, S. Osawa |
| Abstract |
The universal genetic code is used without changes in chloroplasts and in mitochondria of green plants. Non-plant mitochondria use codes that include changes from the universal code. Chloroplasts use 31 anticodons in translating the code; a number smaller than that used by bacteria, because chloroplasts have eliminated 10 CNN anticodons that are found in bacteria. Green plant mitochondria (mt) obtain some tRNAs from the cytosol, and genes for some other tRNAs have been acquired from chloroplast DNA. The code in non-plant mt differs from the universal code in the following usages found in various organisms: UGA for Trp, AUA for Met, AGR for Ser and stop, AAA for Asn, CUN for Thr, and possibly UAA for Tyr. CGN codons are not used by Torulopsis yeast mt. Non-plant mt, e.g. in vertebrates, may use a minimum of 22 anticodons for complete translation of mRNA sequences. The following possible causes are regarded as contributing to changes in the non-plant mt: directional mutation pressure, genomic economization, changes in charging specificity of tRNAs, loss of release factor RF2, changes in RF1, changes in anticodons, loss of lysidine-forming enzyme system, and disappearance of codons from coding sequences. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 4% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 64 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 31 | 45% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2023.
All research outputs
#2,863,735
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#429
of 5,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,561
of 59,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 59,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.