An improved estimation of tRNA expression to better elucidate the coevolution between tRNA abundance and codon usage in bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree to which codon usage can be explained by tRNA abundance in bacterial species is often inadequate, partly because differential tRNA abundance is often approximated by tRNA copy numbers. To better understand the coevolution between tRNA abundance and codon usage, we provide a better estimate of tRNA abundance by profiling tRNA mapped reads (tRNA tpm) using publicly available RNA Sequencing data. To emphasize the feasibility of our approach, we demonstrate that tRNA tpm is consistent with tRNA abundances derived from RNA fingerprinting experiments in Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, and Salmonella enterica. Furthermore, we do not observe an appreciable reduction in tRNA sequencing efficiency due to post-transcriptional methylations in the seven bacteria studied. To determine optimal codons, we calculate codon usage in highly and lowly expressed genes determined by protein per transcript. We found that tRNA tpm is sensitive to identify more translationally optimal codons than gene copy number and early tRNA fingerprinting abundances. Additionally, tRNA tpm improves the predictive power of tRNA adaptation index over codon preference. Our results suggest that dependence of codon usage on tRNA availability is not always associated with species growth-rate. Conversely, tRNA availability is better optimized to codon usage in fast-growing than slow-growing species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".