↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Correspondence Analysis Methods for Synonymous Codon Usage in Bacteria

Overview of attention for article published in DNA Research, October 2008
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
16 patents
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Comparison of Correspondence Analysis Methods for Synonymous Codon Usage in Bacteria
Published in
DNA Research, October 2008
DOI 10.1093/dnares/dsn028
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Synonymous codon usage varies both between organisms and among genes within a genome, and arises due to differences in G + C content, replication strand skew, or gene expression levels. Correspondence analysis (CA) is widely used to identify major sources of variation in synonymous codon usage among genes and provides a way to identify horizontally transferred or highly expressed genes. Four methods of CA have been developed based on three kinds of input data: absolute codon frequency, relative codon frequency, and relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) as well as within-group CA (WCA). Although different CA methods have been used in the past, no comprehensive comparative study has been performed to evaluate their effectiveness. Here, the four CA methods were evaluated by applying them to 241 bacterial genome sequences. The results indicate that WCA is more effective than the other three methods in generating axes that reflect variations in synonymous codon usage. Furthermore, WCA reveals sources that were previously unnoticed in some genomes; e.g. synonymous codon usage related to replication strand skew was detected in Rickettsia prowazekii. Though CA based on RSCU is widely used, our evaluation indicates that this method does not perform as well as WCA.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Sweden 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 98 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 19%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 12 11%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 19%
Computer Science 3 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 14 13%
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 15 May 2026.
All research outputs
#5,074,702
of 34,089,221 outputs
Outputs from DNA Research
#189
of 860 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,576
of 146,276 outputs
Outputs of similar age from DNA Research
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,089,221 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 860 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 146,276 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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.