↓ Skip to main content

The Coevolution of Genes and Genetic Codes: Crick’s Frozen Accident Revisited

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, July 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
citeulike
7 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
Title
The Coevolution of Genes and Genetic Codes: Crick’s Frozen Accident Revisited
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, July 2006
DOI 10.1007/s00239-004-0176-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guy Sella, David H. Ardell

Abstract

The standard genetic code is the nearly universal system for the translation of genes into proteins. The code exhibits two salient structural characteristics: it possesses a distinct organization that makes it extremely robust to errors in replication and translation, and it is highly redundant. The origin of these properties has intrigued researchers since the code was first discovered. One suggestion, which is the subject of this review, is that the code's organization is the outcome of the coevolution of genes and genetic codes. In 1968, Francis Crick explored the possible implications of coevolution at different stages of code evolution. Although he argues that coevolution was likely to influence the evolution of the code, he concludes that it falls short of explaining the organization of the code we see today. The recent application of mathematical modeling to study the effects of errors on the course of coevolution, suggests a different conclusion. It shows that coevolution readily generates genetic codes that are highly redundant and similar in their error-correcting organization to the standard code. We review this recent work and suggest that further affirmation of the role of coevolution can be attained by investigating the extent to which the outcome of coevolution is robust to other influences that were present during the evolution of the code.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 5%
United States 2 2%
Norway 1 1%
Hong Kong 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 69 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 37%
Researcher 10 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 10%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 3 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 23%
Chemistry 7 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 7%
Computer Science 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 3 4%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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
#7,207,053
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#428
of 1,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,557
of 66,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 66,071 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.