PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14627830

Unexpected correlations between gene expression and codon usage bias from microarray data for the whole Escherichia coli K-12 genome.

Abstract

Escherichia coli has long been regarded as a model organism in the study of codon usage bias (CUB). However, most studies in this organism regarding this topic have been computational or, when experimental, restricted to small datasets; particularly poor attention has been given to genes with low CUB. In this work, correspondence analysis on codon usage is used to classify E.coli genes into three groups, and the relationship between them and expression levels from microarray experiments is studied. These groups are: group 1, highly biased genes; group 2, moderately biased genes; and group 3, AT-rich genes with low CUB. It is shown that, surprisingly, there is a negative correlation between codon bias and expression levels for group 3 genes, i.e. genes with extremely low codon adaptation index (CAI) values are highly expressed, while group 2 show the lowest average expression levels and group 1 show the usual expected positive correlation between CAI and expression. This trend is maintained over all functional gene groups, seeming to contradict the E.coli-yeast paradigm on CUB. It is argued that these findings are still compatible with the mutation-selection balance hypothesis of codon usage and that E.coli genes form a dynamic system shaped by these factors.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mario dos Reis, Lorenz Wernisch, Renos Savva. 2003-12-01. Unexpected correlations between gene expression and codon usage bias from microarray data for the whole Escherichia coli K-12 genome.. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar%2Fgkg897

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies.

For random effects meta-analysis, seven different estimators of the heterogeneity variance are compared and assessed using a simulation study. The seven estimators are the variance component type estimator (VC), the method of moments estimator (MM), the maximum likelihood estimator (ML), the restricted maximum likelihood estimator (REML), the empirical Bayes estimator (EB), the model error variance type estimator (MV), and a variation of the MV estimator (MVvc). The performance of the estimators is compared in terms of both bias and mean squared error, using Monte Carlo simulation. The results show that the REML and especially the ML and MM estimators are not accurate, having large biases unless the true heterogeneity variance is small. The VC estimator tends to overestimate the heterogeneity variance in general, but is quite accurate when the number of studies is large. The MV estimator is not a good estimator when the heterogeneity variance is small to moderate, but it is reasonably accurate when the heterogeneity variance is large. The MVvc estimator is an improved estimator compared to the MV estimator, especially for small to moderate values of the heterogeneity variance. The two estimators MVvc and EB are found to be the most accurate in general, particularly when the heterogeneity variance is moderate to large.

Bias↗