Codon usage patterns across seven Rosales species.
Codon usage bias
Evolutionary relationships
Natural selection
Rosales
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Feb 2022
05 Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
24
09
2021
accepted:
31
01
2022
entrez:
6
2
2022
pubmed:
7
2
2022
medline:
15
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Codon usage bias (CUB) analysis is an effective method for studying specificity, evolutionary relationships, and mRNA translation and discovering new genes among various species. In general, CUB analysis is mainly performed within one species or between closely related species and no such study has been applied among species with distant genetic relationships. Here, seven Rosales species with high economic value were selected to conduct CUB analysis. The results showed that the average GC1, GC2 and GC3 contents were 51.08, 40.52 and 43.12%, respectively, indicating that the A/T content is more abundant and the Rosales species prefer A/T as the last codon. Neutrality plot and ENc plot analysis revealed that natural selection was the main factor leading to CUB during the evolution of Rosales species. All 7 Rosales species contained three high-frequency codons, AGA, GTT and TTG, encoding Arg, Val and Leu, respectively. The 7 Rosales species differed in high-frequency codon pairs and the distribution of GC3, though the usage patterns of closely related species were more consistent. The results of the biclustering heat map among 7 Rosales species and 20 other species were basically consistent with the results of genome data, suggesting that CUB analysis is an effective method for revealing evolutionary relationships among species at the family or order level. In addition, chlorophytes prefer using G/C as ending codon, while monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants prefer using A/T as ending codon. The CUB pattern among Rosales species was mainly affected by natural selection. This work is the first to highlight the CUB patterns and characteristics of Rosales species and provides a new perspective for studying genetic relationships across a wide range of species.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Codon usage bias (CUB) analysis is an effective method for studying specificity, evolutionary relationships, and mRNA translation and discovering new genes among various species. In general, CUB analysis is mainly performed within one species or between closely related species and no such study has been applied among species with distant genetic relationships. Here, seven Rosales species with high economic value were selected to conduct CUB analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The results showed that the average GC1, GC2 and GC3 contents were 51.08, 40.52 and 43.12%, respectively, indicating that the A/T content is more abundant and the Rosales species prefer A/T as the last codon. Neutrality plot and ENc plot analysis revealed that natural selection was the main factor leading to CUB during the evolution of Rosales species. All 7 Rosales species contained three high-frequency codons, AGA, GTT and TTG, encoding Arg, Val and Leu, respectively. The 7 Rosales species differed in high-frequency codon pairs and the distribution of GC3, though the usage patterns of closely related species were more consistent. The results of the biclustering heat map among 7 Rosales species and 20 other species were basically consistent with the results of genome data, suggesting that CUB analysis is an effective method for revealing evolutionary relationships among species at the family or order level. In addition, chlorophytes prefer using G/C as ending codon, while monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants prefer using A/T as ending codon.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The CUB pattern among Rosales species was mainly affected by natural selection. This work is the first to highlight the CUB patterns and characteristics of Rosales species and provides a new perspective for studying genetic relationships across a wide range of species.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35123393
doi: 10.1186/s12870-022-03450-x
pii: 10.1186/s12870-022-03450-x
pmc: PMC8817548
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
65Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Gene. 2019 Jul 15;705:127-132
pubmed: 31028866
Annu Rev Genet. 2008;42:287-99
pubmed: 18983258
Genome. 2017 Jun;60(6):473-484
pubmed: 28177830
Mar Genomics. 2017 Apr;32:31-39
pubmed: 27733306
Gene. 2016 Jul 15;586(1):105-14
pubmed: 27063508
J Genet Genomics. 2007 Jun;34(6):555-61
pubmed: 17601615
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007 Mar 16;354(3):693-9
pubmed: 17258174
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43111
pubmed: 22912801
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2013 Jan;66(1):17-29
pubmed: 22982444
Genome Biol. 2001;2(4):RESEARCH0010
pubmed: 11305938
BMC Genomics. 2015 May 06;16:356
pubmed: 25943559
Mol Biol Evol. 1994 Sep;11(5):725-36
pubmed: 7968486
Mol Ther. 2012 May;20(5):954-9
pubmed: 22434136
J Genet. 2018 Mar;97(1):97-107
pubmed: 29666329
Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5(8):1443-56
pubmed: 23833164
PeerJ. 2020 Jan 6;8:e8251
pubmed: 31934501
J Mol Evol. 2001 Oct-Nov;53(4-5):465-8
pubmed: 11675606
BMC Genomics. 2013 Oct 25;14:732
pubmed: 24160180
Mol Biol Evol. 1985 Jan;2(1):13-34
pubmed: 3916708
Nat Commun. 2014 Oct 28;5:5315
pubmed: 25350882
Genetics. 2001 Nov;159(3):1191-9
pubmed: 11729162
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 27;13(3):e0194372
pubmed: 29584741
Nat Commun. 2013;4:2445
pubmed: 24048436
Genetics. 1999 Jan;151(1):239-49
pubmed: 9872963
Genes (Basel). 2015 Oct 22;6(4):1125-39
pubmed: 26506393
Gene. 1990 Mar 1;87(1):23-9
pubmed: 2110097
Mol Cell Biol. 1992 Mar;12(3):1149-61
pubmed: 1545796
DNA Res. 2013 Apr;20(2):135-50
pubmed: 23315666
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 15;9(1):e85631
pubmed: 24454907
Plant Physiol. 2006 May;141(1):147-66
pubmed: 16531485
Genes Genet Syst. 2003 Oct;78(5):343-52
pubmed: 14676425
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jul 17;5:359
pubmed: 22805311
BMC Evol Biol. 2009 Dec 08;9:285
pubmed: 19995431
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Apr;75(4):1759-62
pubmed: 273907
J Biol Chem. 1995 Sep 29;270(39):22801-6
pubmed: 7559409
Genome Res. 2013 Feb;23(2):396-408
pubmed: 23149293
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 9;101(10):3480-5
pubmed: 14990797
J Mol Evol. 1986;24(1-2):28-38
pubmed: 3104616
Nat Rev Genet. 2011 Jan;12(1):32-42
pubmed: 21102527
BMC Genomics. 2008 Jul 27;9:351
pubmed: 18655731
BMC Genomics. 2020 Dec 16;21(Suppl 5):234
pubmed: 33327935
Nucleic Acids Res. 1998 Jul 1;26(13):3188-93
pubmed: 9628917
J Mol Evol. 1995 Oct;41(4):522-30
pubmed: 7563140
J Mol Evol. 2003 Mar;56(3):362-70
pubmed: 12612839
PLoS Biol. 2006 Jun;4(6):e180
pubmed: 16700628
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1988 Apr;85(8):2653-7
pubmed: 3357886
Ann Bot. 2017 Nov 28;120(6):893-909
pubmed: 29155926