↓ Skip to main content

An Evaluation of Measures of Synonymous Codon Usage Bias

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Molecular Evolution, September 1998
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
268 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
An Evaluation of Measures of Synonymous Codon Usage Bias
Published in
Journal of Molecular Evolution, September 1998
DOI 10.1007/pl00006384
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josep M. Comeron, Montserrat Aguadé

Abstract

Synonymous codons are not generally used at equal frequencies, and this trend is observed for most genes and organisms. Several methods have been proposed and used to estimate the degree of the nonrandom use of the different synonymous codons. The estimates obtained by these methods, however, show different levels of both precision and dispersion when coding regions of a finite number of codons are under analysis. Here, we present a study, based on computer simulation, of how the different methods proposed to evaluate the nonrandom use of synonymous codons are affected by the length of the coding region analyzed. The results show that some of these methods are heavily influenced by the number of codons and that the comparison of codon usage bias between coding regions of different lengths shows a methodological bias under different conditions of nonrandom use of synonymous codons. The study of the dispersion of the estimates obtained by the different methods gives, on the other hand, an indication of the methods to be applied to compare values of codon usage bias among coding regions of equivalent length.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Spain 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 160 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 18%
Researcher 32 18%
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 7%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 25 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 96 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 19%
Environmental Science 4 2%
Computer Science 4 2%
Mathematics 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 27 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 05 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,798,945
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#159
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,508
of 31,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 31,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.