The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolution of codon usage bias in Drosophila
Open accessAbstract
We first review what is known about patterns of codon usage bias in Drosophila and make the following points: (i)Drosophila genes are as biased or more biased than those in microorganisms. (ii) The level of bias of genes and even the particular pattern of codon bias can remain phylogenetically invariant for very long periods of evolution. (iii) However, some genes, even very tightly linked genes, can change very greatly in codon bias across species. (iv) Generally G and especially C are favored at synonymous sites in biased genes. (v) With the exception of aspartic acid, all amino acids contribute significantly and about equally to the codon usage bias of a gene. (vi) While most individual amino acids that can use G or C at synonymous sites display a preference for C, there are exceptions: valine and leucine, which prefer G. (vii) Finally, smaller genes tend to be more biased than longer genes. We then examine possible causes of these patterns and discount mutation bias on three bases: there is little evidence of regional mutation bias in Drosophila,mutation bias is likely toward A+T (the opposite of codon usage bias), and not all amino acids display the preference for the same nucleotide in the wobble position. Two lines of evidence support a selection hypothesis based on tRNA pools: highly biased genes tend to be highly and/or rapidly expressed, and the preferred codons in highly biased genes optimally bind the most abundant isoaccepting tRNAs. Finally, we examine the effect of bias on DNA evolution and confirm that genes with high codon usage bias have lower rates of synonymous substitution between species than do genes with low codon usage bias. Surprisingly, we find that genes with higher codon usage bias display higher levels of intraspecific synonymous polymorphism. This may be due to opposing effects of recombination.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sharp, P. M., & Li, W.-H. (1987) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/15.3.1281 · Cited by 3,992
Cited by
Codon optimality, bias and usage in translation and mRNA decay
Hanson, G., & Coller, J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/nrm.2017.91 · Cited by 825
Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes
Zhang, J., Rosenberg, H. F., & Nei, M. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.7.3708 · Cited by 734
Evolution on the X chromosome: unusual patterns and processes
Vicoso, B., & Charlesworth, B. (2006) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1914 · Cited by 499
McVean, G. A. T., & Charlesworth, B. (2000) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/155.2.929 · Cited by 336
Balanced Codon Usage Optimizes Eukaryotic Translational Efficiency
Qian, W., Yang, J.-R., Pearson, N. M., Maclean, C., & Zhang, J. (2012) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002603 · Cited by 310
Metadata
- Authors
- Powell, J. R., & Moriyama, E. N.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 1997-07-22
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 7784-7790
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2089434733
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evolution of codon usage bias in Drosophila. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.94.15.7784
- The paper
- Powell, J. R., & Moriyama, E. N. (1997). Evolution of codon usage bias in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.15.7784
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.