Codon optimization: a mathematical programing approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Synthesizing proteins in heterologous hosts is an important tool in biotechnology. However, the genetic code is degenerate and the codon usage is biased in many organisms. Synonymous codon changes that are customized for each host organism may have a significant effect on the level of protein expression. This effect can be measured by using metrics, such as codon adaptation index, codon pair bias, relative codon bias and relative codon pair bias. Codon optimization is designing codons that improve one or more of these objectives. Currently available algorithms and software solutions either rely on heuristics without providing optimality guarantees or are very rigid in modeling different objective functions and restrictions. RESULTS: We develop an effective mixed integer linear programing (MILP) formulation, which considers multiple objectives. Our numerical study shows that this formulation can be effectively used to generate (Pareto) optimal codon designs even for very long amino acid sequences using a standard commercial solver. We also show that one can obtain designs in the efficient frontier in reasonable solution times and incorporate other complex objectives, such as mRNA secondary structures in codon design using MILP formulations. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: http://alpersen.bilkent.edu.tr/codonoptimization/CodonOptimization.zip.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".