↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of synonymous codon usage bias in helicase gene from Autographa californica multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Genomics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Analysis of synonymous codon usage bias in helicase gene from Autographa californica multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus
Published in
Genes & Genomics, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13258-018-0689-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongju Wang, Tao Meng, Wenqiang Wei

Abstract

The helicase gene of Autographa californica multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus (AcMNPV) is not only involved in viral DNA replication, but also plays a role in viral host range. To identify the codon usage bias of helicase of AcMNPV, the codon usage bias of helicase was especially studies in AcMNPV and 41 reference strains of baculoviruses by calculating the codon adaptation index (CAI), effective number of codon (ENc), relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU), and other indices. The helicase of baculovirus is less biased (mean ENc = 50.539 > 40; mean CAI = 0.246). AcMNPV helicase has a strong bias toward the synonymous codons with G and C at the third codon position (GC3s = 53.6%). The plot of GC3s against ENc values revealed that GC compositional constraints are the main factor that determines the codon usage bias of major of helicase. Several indicators supported that the codon usage pattern of helicase is mainly subject to mutation pressure. Analysis of variation in codon usage and amino acid composition indicated AcMNPV helicase shows the significant preference for one or more postulated codons for each amino acid. A cluster analysis based on RSCU values suggested that AcMNPV is evolutionarily closer to members of group I alphabaculovirus. Comparison of the codon usage pattern among E. coli, yeast, mouse, human and AcMNPV showed that yeast is a suitable expression system for AcMNPV helicase. AcMNPV helicase shows weak codon usage bias. This study may help in elucidating the functional mechanism of AcMNPV helicase and the evolution of baculovirus helicases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Unknown 5 71%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 29%
Unknown 5 71%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Genomics
#354
of 661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#303,595
of 343,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Genomics
#23
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 661 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 343,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.