Analysis of synonymous codon usage in<i>Shigella flexneri</i>2a strain 301 and other<i>Shigella</i>and<i>Escherichia coli</i>strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we analysed synonymous codon usage in Shigella flexneri 2a strain 301 (Sf301) and performed a comparative analysis of synonymous codon usage patterns in Sf301 and other strains of Shigella and Escherichia coli. Although there was a significant variety in codon usage bias among different Sf301 genes, there was a slight but observable codon usage bias that could primarily be attributable to mutational pressure and translational selection. In addition, the relative abundance of dinucleotides in Sf301 was observed to be independent of the overall base composition but was still caused by differential mutational pressure; this also shaped codon usage. By comparing the relative synonymous codon usage values across different Shigella and E. coli strains, we suggested that the synonymous codon usage pattern in the Shigella genomes was strain specific. This study represents a comprehensive analysis of Shigella codon usage patterns and provides a basic understanding of the mechanisms underlying codon usage bias.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".