↓ Skip to main content

Contributions of Speed and Accuracy to Translational Selection in Bacteria

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
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.
Title
Contributions of Speed and Accuracy to Translational Selection in Bacteria
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0051652
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenqi Ran, Paul G. Higgs

Abstract

Among bacteria, we have previously shown that species that are capable of rapid growth have stronger selection on codon usage than slow growing species, and possess higher numbers of rRNA and tRNA genes. This suggests that fast-growers are adapted for fast protein synthesis. There is also considerable evidence that codon usage is influenced by accuracy of translation, and some authors have argued that accuracy is more important than speed. Here we compare the strength of the two effects by studying the codon usages in high and low expression genes and on conserved and variable sites within high expression genes. We introduce a simple statistical method that can be used to assess the significance and the strength of the two types of bias in the same sets of sequences. We compare our statistical measure of codon bias to the common used codon adaptation index, and show that the new measure is preferable for three reasons for the purposes of this analysis. Across a large sample of bacterial genomes, both effects from speed and accuracy are clearly visible, although the speed effect appears to be much stronger than the accuracy effect and is found to be significant in a larger proportion of genomes. It is also difficult to explain the correlation of codon bias in the high expression genes with growth rates and numbers of copies of tRNA and rRNA genes on the basis of selection for accuracy. Hence we conclude that selection for translational speed is a dominant effect in driving codon usage bias in fast-growing bacteria, with selection for accuracy playing a small supplementary role.

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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 26%
Researcher 11 22%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 16%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 8 16%
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 22 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,323,689
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#153,967
of 193,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,522
of 278,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,545
of 4,825 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 278,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,825 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.