A General Model of Codon Bias Due to GC Mutational Bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In spite of extensive research on the effect of mutation and selection on codon usage, a general model of codon usage bias due to mutational bias has been lacking. Because most amino acids allow synonymous GC content changing substitutions in the third codon position, the overall GC bias of a genome or genomic region is highly correlated with GC3, a measure of third position GC content. For individual amino acids as well, G/C ending codons usage generally increases with increasing GC bias and decreases with increasing AT bias. Arginine and leucine, amino acids that allow GC-changing synonymous substitutions in the first and third codon positions, have codons which may be expected to show different usage patterns. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In analyzing codon usage bias in hundreds of prokaryotic and plant genomes and in human genes, we find that two G-ending codons, AGG (arginine) and TTG (leucine), unlike all other G/C-ending codons, show overall usage that decreases with increasing GC bias, contrary to the usual expectation that G/C-ending codon usage should increase with increasing genomic GC bias. Moreover, the usage of some codons appears nonlinear, even nonmonotone, as a function of GC bias. To explain these observations, we propose a continuous-time Markov chain model of GC-biased synonymous substitution. This model correctly predicts the qualitative usage patterns of all codons, including nonlinear codon usage in isoleucine, arginine and leucine. The model accounts for 72%, 64% and 52% of the observed variability of codon usage in prokaryotes, plants and human respectively. When codons are grouped based on common GC content, 87%, 80% and 68% of the variation in usage is explained for prokaryotes, plants and human respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The model clarifies the sometimes-counterintuitive effects that GC mutational bias can have on codon usage, quantifies the influence of GC mutational bias and provides a natural null model relative to which other influences on codon bias may be measured.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".