Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 594

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Codon usage patterns in Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens; a review of the considerable within-species diversity

Open access
Sharp, Paul M., Cowe, Elizabeth, Higgins, Desmond G., Shields, Denis C., Wolfe, Kenneth H., Wright, Frank·1988·Nucleic Acids Research

Abstract

The genetic code is degenerate, but alternative synonymous codons are generally not used with equal frequency. Since the pioneering work of Grantham's group it has been apparent that genes from one species often share similarities in codon frequency; under the "genome hypothesis" there is a species-specific pattern to codon usage. However, it has become clear that in most species there are also considerable differences among genes. Multivariate analyses have revealed that in each species so far examined there is a single major trend in codon usage among genes, usually from highly biased to more nearly even usage of synonymous codons. Thus, to represent the codon usage pattern of an organism it is not sufficient to sum over all genes as this conceals the underlying heterogeneity. Rather, it is necessary to describe the trend among genes seen in that species. We illustrate these trends for six species where codon usage has been examined in detail, by presenting the pooled codon usage for the 10% of genes at either end of the major trend. Closely-related organisms have similar patterns of codon usage, and so the six species in Table 1 are representative of wider groups. For example, with respect to codon usage, Salmonella typhimurium closely resembles E. coli, while all mammalian species so far examined (principally mouse, rat and cow) largely resemble humans.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nar/16.17.8207

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 594

Metadata

Authors
Sharp, P. M., Cowe, E., Higgins, D. G., Shields, D. C., Wolfe, K. H., & Wright, F.
Venue
Nucleic Acids Research
Published
1988
Volume
16
Issue
17
Pages
8207-8211
ISSN
  • 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
  • 1362-4962
OpenAlex
W2138721124
Cited by
594
References
11
FWCI
8.77
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: Codon usage patterns in Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens; a review of the considerable within-species diversity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/nar/16.17.8207
The paper
Sharp, P. M., Cowe, E., Higgins, D. G., Shields, D. C., Wolfe, K. H., & Wright, F. (1988). Codon usage patterns in Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens; a review of the considerable within-species diversity. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/16.17.8207

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.