The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Codon Usage in Higher Plants, Green Algae, and Cyanobacteria
Open accessAbstract
Codon usage is the selective and nonrandom use of synonymous codons by an organism to encode the amino acids in the genes for its proteins. During the last few years, a large number of plant genes have been cloned and sequenced, which now permits a meaningful comparison of codon usage in higher plants, algae, and cyanobacteria. For the nuclear and organellar genes of these organisms, a small set of preferred codons are used for encoding proteins. Codon usage is different for each genome type with the variation mainly occurring in choices between codons ending in cytidine (C) or guanosine (G) versus those ending in adenosine (A) or uridine (U). For organellar genomes, chloroplastic and mitochrondrial proteins are encoded mainly with codons ending in A or U. In most cyanobacteria and the nuclei of green algae, proteins are encoded preferentially with codons ending in C or G. Although only a few nuclear genes of higher plants have been sequenced, a clear distinction between Magnoliopsida (dicot) and Liliopsida (monocot) codon usage is evident. Dicot genes use a set of 44 preferred codons with a slight preference for codons ending in A or U. Monocot codon usage is more restricted with an average of 38 codons preferred, which are predominantly those ending in C or G. But two classes of genes can be recognized in monocots. One set of monocot genes uses codons similar to those in dicots, while the other genes are highly biased toward codons ending in C or G with a pattern similar to nuclear genes of green algae. Codon usage is discussed in relation to evolution of plants and prospects for intergenic transfer of particular genes.
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
Cited by
Intrastrand parity rules of DNA base composition and usage biases of synonymous codons
Sueoka, N. (1995) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf00163236 · Cited by 462
Willekens, H., Inzé, D., Van Montagu, M., & van Camp, W. (1995) · Molecular Breeding · doi:10.1007/bf02277422 · Cited by 451
Insights into corn genes derived from large-scale cDNA sequencing
Alexandrov, N. N., Brover, V. V., Freidin, S., Troukhan, M. E., Tatarinova, T. V., Zhang, H., Swaller, T. J., Lu, Y.-P., Bouck, J., Flavell, R. B., et al. (2009) · Plant Molecular Biology · doi:10.1007/s11103-008-9415-4 · Cited by 248
Application of synthetic biology in cyanobacteria and algae
Wang, B., Wang, J., Zhang, W., & Meldrum, D. R. (2012) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2012.00344 · Cited by 211
Chlamydomonas reinhardtii chloroplasts as protein factories
Mayfield, S. P., Manuell, A. L., Chen, S., Wu, J., Tran, M., Siefker, D., Muto, M., & Marin-Navarro, J. (2007) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2007.02.001 · Cited by 201
Metadata
- Authors
- Campbell, W. H., & Gowri, G.
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1990-01-01
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-11
- ISSN
- 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2548
- OpenAlex
- W2005729748
- Cited by
- 248
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.43
- 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 in Higher Plants, Green Algae, and Cyanobacteria. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1104/pp.92.1.1
- The paper
- Campbell, W. H., & Gowri, G. (1990). Codon Usage in Higher Plants, Green Algae, and Cyanobacteria. Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.92.1.1
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.