Literature DB >> 7723058

Intrastrand parity rules of DNA base composition and usage biases of synonymous codons.

N Sueoka1.   

Abstract

When there are no biases in mutation and selection between the two strands of DNA, the 12 possible substitution rates of the four nucleotides reduces to six (type 1 parity rule or PR1), and the intrastrand average base composition is expected to be A = T and G = C at equilibrium without regard to the G + C content of DNA (type 2 parity rule or PR2). Significant deviations from the parity rules in the third codon letters of the four-codon amino acids result mostly from selective biases rather than mutational biases between the two strands of DNA during evolution. The parity rules lay the foundation for evaluating the biases in synonymous codon usage in terms of (1) directional mutation pressure for variation of the DNA G + C content due to mutational biases between alpha-bases (A or T) and gamma-bases (G or C), (2) strand-bias mutation, for example, by DNA repair during transcription, and (3) functional selection in evolution, for example, due to tRNA abundance. The present analysis shows that, although the PR2 violation is common in the third codon letters of four-codon amino acids, the contribution of PR2 violation to the DNA G + C content of the third codon position is small and, in majority of cases, mildly counteracts the effect of the directional mutation pressure on the G + C content.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7723058     DOI: 10.1007/bf00163236

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Evol        ISSN: 0022-2844            Impact factor:   2.395


  28 in total

1.  On the genetic basis of variation and heterogeneity of DNA base composition.

Authors:  N SUEOKA
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1962-04-15       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid.

Authors:  J D WATSON; F H CRICK
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1953-04-25       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Codon usage in higher plants, green algae, and cyanobacteria.

Authors:  W H Campbell; G Gowri
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 8.340

4.  Nucleotide distribution in gymnosperm nuclear sequences suggests a model for GC-content change in land-plant nuclear genomes.

Authors:  S Jansson; G Meyer-Gauen; R Cerff; W Martin
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.395

5.  DNA repair in an active gene: removal of pyrimidine dimers from the DHFR gene of CHO cells is much more efficient than in the genome overall.

Authors:  V A Bohr; C A Smith; D S Okumoto; P C Hanawalt
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1985-02       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 6.  Codon catalog usage and the genome hypothesis.

Authors:  R Grantham; C Gautier; M Gouy; R Mercier; A Pavé
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  1980-01-11       Impact factor: 16.971

7.  DNA repair helicase: a component of BTF2 (TFIIH) basic transcription factor.

Authors:  L Schaeffer; R Roy; S Humbert; V Moncollin; W Vermeulen; J H Hoeijmakers; P Chambon; J M Egly
Journal:  Science       Date:  1993-04-02       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  DNA strand bias in the repair of the p53 gene in normal human and xeroderma pigmentosum group C fibroblasts.

Authors:  M K Evans; B G Taffe; C C Harris; V A Bohr
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1993-11-15       Impact factor: 12.701

9.  Correlation between the abundance of Escherichia coli transfer RNAs and the occurrence of the respective codons in its protein genes: a proposal for a synonymous codon choice that is optimal for the E. coli translational system.

Authors:  T Ikemura
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1981-09-25       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 10.  Preferential codon usage in prokaryotic genes: the optimal codon-anticodon interaction energy and the selective codon usage in efficiently expressed genes.

Authors:  H Grosjean; W Fiers
Journal:  Gene       Date:  1982-06       Impact factor: 3.688

View more
  100 in total

1.  A phylogenomic study of DNA repair genes, proteins, and processes.

Authors:  J A Eisen; P C Hanawalt
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  1999-12-07       Impact factor: 2.433

2.  A unique pattern of intrastrand anomalies in base composition of the DNA in hypotrichs.

Authors:  D M Prescott; S J Dizick
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-12-01       Impact factor: 16.971

3.  Mutation patterns of mitochondrial H- and L-strand DNA in closely related Cyprinid fishes.

Authors:  Joseph P Bielawski; John R Gold
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Twofold symmetries in nucleotide distribution in large domains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Chromosome I.

Authors:  J Conde
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomics       Date:  2003-11-05       Impact factor: 3.291

5.  Strand compositional asymmetries of nuclear DNA in eukaryotes.

Authors:  Deng K Niu; Kui Lin; Da-Yong Zhang
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.395

6.  Detecting gradients of asymmetry in site-specific substitutions in mitochondrial genomes.

Authors:  Neeraja M Krishnan; Hervè Seligmann; Sameer Z Raina; David D Pollock
Journal:  DNA Cell Biol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.311

7.  DNA sequence representation by trianders and determinative degree of nucleotides.

Authors:  Diana Duplij; Steven Duplij
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 3.066

8.  Nonneutral GC3 and retroelement codon mimicry in Phytophthora.

Authors:  Rays H Y Jiang; Francine Govers
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2006-09-04       Impact factor: 2.395

9.  Mitochondrial gene rearrangements and partial genome duplications detected by multigene asymmetric compositional bias analysis.

Authors:  Miguel M Fonseca; Elsa Froufe; D James Harris
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2006-10-29       Impact factor: 2.395

10.  The response of amino acid frequencies to directional mutation pressure in mitochondrial genome sequences is related to the physical properties of the amino acids and to the structure of the genetic code.

Authors:  Daniel Urbina; Bin Tang; Paul G Higgs
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2006-02-13       Impact factor: 2.395

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.