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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Self-citationCodon usage and tRNA content in unicellular and multicellular organisms.
(1985) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040335 · Cited by 1,703
Bennetzen, J. L., & Hall, B. D. (1982) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1016/s0021-9258(19)81068-2 · Cited by 1,580
Codon usage in bacteria: correlation with gene expressivity
Gouy, M., & Gautier, C. (1982) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/10.22.7055 · Cited by 1,250
Codon usage in yeast: cluster analysis clearly differentiates highly and lowly expressed genes
Sharp, P. M., Tuohy, T. M. F., & Mosurski, K. R. (1986) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/14.13.5125 · Cited by 1,200
Self-citationCodon catalog usage is a genome strategy modulated for gene expressivity
Grantham, R., Gautier, C., Gouy, M., Jacobzone, M., & Mercier, R. (1981) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/9.1.213-b · Cited by 939
Codon catalog usage and the genome hypothesis
Grantham, R., Gautier, C., Gouy, M., Mercier, R., & Pavé, A. (1980) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/8.1.197-c · Cited by 800
Codon usage tabulated from the GenBank Genetic Sequence Data
Aota, S.-I., Gojobori, T., Ishibashi, F., Maruyama, T., & Ikemura, T. (1988) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/16.suppl.r315 · Cited by 600
Codon usage in regulatory genes in Escherichia coli does not reflect selection for ‘rare’ codons
Sharp, P. M., & Li, W.-H. (1986) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/14.19.7737 · Cited by 585
Self-citationShields, D. C., & Sharp, P. M. (1987) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/15.19.8023 · Cited by 293
Self-citation
Cited by
Variation in the strength of selected codon usage bias among bacteria
Sharp, P. M. (2005) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gki242 · Cited by 429
Self-citationA pause for thought along the co-translational folding pathway
Komar, A. A. (2009) · Trends in Biochemical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2008.10.002 · Cited by 349
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
Brown, C. M., Stockwell, P. A., Trotman, C. N. A., & Tate, W. P. (1990) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/18.21.6339 · Cited by 191
van Hemert, F. J., & Berkhout, B. (1995) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf00170664 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Sharp, P. M., Cowe, E., Higgins, D. G., Shields, D. C., Wolfe, K. H., & Wright, F.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.