A new DNA sequences vector space on a genetic code galois field

Match

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 3-28

  Sánchez, Robersy ^a,b,c   Perfetti, Luis A ^b   Grau, Ricardo ^b   Morales, E R Morgado ^b  

^a Research Institute of Tropical Roots Tuber Crops and Banana INIVIT   (Cuba)

^b CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF LAS VILLAS   (Cuba)

^c NONE   (Cuba)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27544433166     PISSN: 03406253     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Alf-Steinberger, C. 1969. The genetic code and error transmission. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 64, 584-591.
2. Chothia, C.H. 1975. Structural Invariants in Protein Folding. Nature, 354, 304-308.
3. Duret, L., Mouchiroud, D. 1999. Expression pattern and, surprisingly, gene length, shape codon usage in Caenorhabditis, Drosophila, and Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA., 96, 17-25
4. Fauchere J-L, Pliska V. 1983. Hydrophobic parameters pi of amino acid side chains from the partitioning of N-acetyl-amino-acid amides. Eur. J Med. Chem., 18, 369-375.
5. Friedman, S.M. 1964. Weinstein, I..B.: Lack of fidelity in the translation of ribopolynucleotides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 52, 988-996.
6. Fuglsang, A. 2003. Strong associations between gene function and codon usage. APMIS, 111, 843-7.
7. Gillis, D., Massar, S., Cerf, N.J., Rooman, M. 2001. Optimality of the genetic code with respect to protein stability and amino acid frequencies. Genome Biology 2, research0049.1-research0049.12.
8. Golomb, S., Shift Register Sequences, 2nd edition, Aegean Park Press, 1982.
9. Grantham R., 1974. Amino Acid Difference Formula to Help Explain Protein Evolution. Science, 185, 862-864.
10. Gupta, S.K., Majumdar, S., Bhattacharya, K., Ghosh, T.C. 2000. Studies on the relationships between synonymous codon usage and protein secondary structure. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Comm., 269, 692-6.
11. Karplus P. A. 1997. Hydrophobicity regained. Protein Science, 6, 1302.
12. Makrides, S.C. 1996. Strategies for achieving high-level expression of genes in Escherichia coli. Microbiol. Rev., 60, 512-38.
13. Nakamura Y, Gojobori T, and Ikemura T. 2001. Codon usage tabulated from international DNA sequence database: status for the year 2000. Nucleic Acids Research, 28, pp 292.
14. Oresic. M., Shalloway, D. 1998. Specific correlations between relative synonymous codon usage and protein secondary structure. J Mol. Biol., 281, 31-48
15. Parker, J. 1989. Errors and alternatives in reading the universal genetic code. Microbiol. Rev., 53, 273-298.
16. Redéi, L. 1967. Algebra, Vol.1. Akadémiai Kiadó., Budapest.
17. Rose, G.D. 1985. Geselowitz, A.R, Lesser, G.J., Lee, R.H., Zehfus, M.H.: Hydrophobicity of amino acid residues in globular proteins. Sciences, 229, 834-838.
18. Sánchez, R., Grau, R. and Morgado, E. 2004a. The Genetic Code Boolean Lattice. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem., 52, 29-46.
19. Sánchez, R., Grau, R., Morgado, E. 2004b. Genetic Code Boolean Algebras, WSEAS Transactions on Biology and Biomedicine 1, 190-197.
20. Tao, X., Dafu, D. 1998. The relationship between synonymous codon usage and protein structure. FEBS Lett. 434, 93-6
21. Woese, C.R. 1985. On the evolution of the genetic code. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA., 54, 1546-1552.