Effective population size does not predict codon usage bias in mammals

Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 4, Issue 20, 2014, Pages 3887-3900

  Kessler, Michael D ^a   Dean, Matthew D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Codon usage bias; Effective population size; Selection

Indexed keywords

MAMMALIA; MUS MUSCULUS; ORYCTOLAGUS CUNICULUS; PAN;

EID: 84930802000     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20457758     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.1249     Document Type: Article

References (134)

1. Agashe, D., N. C. Martinez-Gomez, D. A. Drummond, and C. J. Marx 2013. Good codons, bad transcript: large reductions in gene expression and fitness arising from synonymous mutations in a key enzyme. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30:549-560. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss273.
2. Akashi, H. 1995. Inferring weak selection from patterns of polymorphism and divergence at "silent" sites in Drosophila DNA. Genetics 139:1067-1076.
3. Akashi, H. 1996. Molecular evolution between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans: reduced codon bias, faster rates of amino acid substitution, and larger proteins in D. melanogaster. Genetics 144:1297-1307.
4. Akashi, H., R. Kliman, and A. Eyre-Walker 1998. Mutation pressure, natural selection, and the evolution of base composition in Drosophila. Pp. 49-60 in R. Woodruff, J. Thompson Jr, eds. Mutation and evolution. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
5. Andolfatto, P., and M. Przeworski 2001. Regions of lower crossing over harbor more rare variants in African populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 158:657-665.
6. Andolfatto, P., K. M. Wong, and D. Bachtrog 2011. Effective population size and the efficacy of selection on the X chromosomes of two closely related Drosophila species. Genome Biol. Evol. 3:114-128.
7. Aquadro, C. F., K. M. Lado, and W. A. Noon 1988. The rosy region of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans. I. Contrasting levels of naturally occurring DNA restriction map variation and divergence. Genetics 119:875-888.
8. Bachtrog, D. 2007. Reduced selection for codon usage bias in Drosophila miranda. J. Mol. Evol. 64:586-590. doi: 10.1007/s00239-006-0257-x.
9. Behura, S. K., and D. W. Severson 2011. Coadaptation of isoacceptor tRNA genes and codon usage bias for translation efficiency in Aedes aegypti and Anopheles gambiae. Insect Mol. Biol. 20:177-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2583.2010.01055.x.
10. Behura, S. K., and D. W. Severson 2013. Codon usage bias: causative factors, quantification methods and genome-wide patterns: with emphasis on insect genomes. Biol. Rev. 88:49-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00242.x.
11. Behura, S. K., B. K. Singh, and D. W. Severson 2013. Antagonistic relationships between intron content and codon usage bias of genes in three mosquito species: functional and evolutionary implications. Evol. Appl. 6:1079-1089. doi: 10.1111/eva.12088.
12. Bernardi, G. 1995. The human genome: organization and evolutionary history. Annu. Rev. Genet. 29:445-476. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.29.120195.002305.
13. Bernardi, G. 2000. Isochores and the evolutionary genomics of vertebrates. Gene 241:3-17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1119(99)00485-0.
14. Betancourt, A. J., and D. C. Presgraves 2002. Linkage limits the power of natural selection in Drosophila. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99:13616-13620. doi: 10.1073/pnas.212277199.
15. Bierne, N., and A. Eyre-Walker 2006. Variation in synonymous codon use and DNA polymorphism within the Drosophila genome. J. Evol. Biol. 19:1-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00996.x.
16. Bulmer, M. 1991. The selection-mutation-drift theory of synonymous codon usage. Genetics 129:897-907.
17. Burt, A., and G. Bell 1987. Mammalian chiasma frequencies as a test of two theories of recombination. Nature 326:803-805.
18. Carlini, D. B., and W. Stephan 2003. In vivo introduction of unpreferred synonymous codons into the Drosophila Adh gene results in reduced levels of ADH protein. Genetics 163:239-243.
19. Carneiro, M., N. Ferrand, and M. W. Nachman 2009. Recombination and speciation: loci near centromeres are more differentiated than loci near telomeres between subspecies of the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Genetics 181:593-606.
20. Chamary, J. V., and L. D. Hurst 2005. Evidence for selection on synonymous mutations affecting stability of mRNA secondary structure in mammals. Genome Biol. 6:R75. doi: 10.1186/gb-2005-6-9-r75.
21. Chamary, J. V., J. L. Parmley, and L. D. Hurst 2006. Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites in mammals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7:98-108. doi: 10.1038/nrg1770.
22. Charlesworth, B. 2009. Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10:195-205.
23. Charlesworth, B. 2013. Stabilizing selection, purifying selection and mutational bias in finite populations. Genetics 194:955-971.
24. Comeron, J. M. 2004. Selective and mutational patterns associated with gene expression in humans: influences on synonymous composition and intron presence. Genetics 167:1293-1304.
25. Comeron, J. M., and M. Kreitman 1998. The correlation between synonymous and nonsynonymous substitutions in Drosophila: mutation, selection or relaxed constraints? Genetics 150:767-775.
26. Comeron, J. M., and M. Kreitman 2000. The correlation between intron length and recombination in Drosophila: dynamic equilibrium between mutational and selective forces. Genetics 156:1175-1190.
27. Consortium TGP. 2012. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1, 092 human genomes. Nature 491:56-65. doi: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v491/n7422/abs/nature11632.html - supplementary-information.
28. Cox, A., C. L. Ackert-Bicknell, B. L. Dumont, Y. Ding, J. T. Bell, G. A. Brockmann, et al. 2009. A new standard genetic map for the laboratory mouse. Genetics 182:1335-1344.
29. Cutter, A. D., and B. Charlesworth 2006. Selection intensity on preferred codons correlates with overall codon usage bias in Caenorhabditis remanei. Curr. Biol. 16:2053-2057.
30. Damuth, J. 1981. Population density and body size in mammals. Nature 290:699-700.
31. Doherty, A., and J. O. McInerney 2013. Translational selection frequently overcomes genetic drift in shaping synonymous codon usage patterns in vertebrates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30:2263-2267.
32. Dumont, B. L., and B. A. Payseur 2011. Evolution of the genomic recombination rate in murid rodents. Genetics 187:643-657.
33. Dumont, B. L., M. A. White, B. Steffy, T. Wiltshire, and B. A. Payseur 2011. Extensive recombination rate variation in the house mouse species complex inferred from genetic linkage maps. Genome Res. 21:114-125.
34. Duret, L. 2002. Evolution of synonymous codon usage in metazoans. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 12:640-649.
35. Duret, L., and D. Mouchiroud 1999. Expression pattern and, surprisingly, gene length shape codon usage in Caenorhabditis, Drosophila, and Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 96:4482-4487.
36. Emerson, J. J., H. Kaessmann, E. Betran, and M. Long 2004. Extensive gene traffic on the mammalian X chromosome. Science 303:537-540.
37. Eory, L., D. L. Halligan, and P. D. Keightley 2010. Distributions of selectively constrained sites and deleterious mutation rates in the hominid and murid genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27:177-192.
38. Eyre-Walker, A. 1996. Synonymous codon bias is related to gene length in Escherichia coli: selection for translational accuracy? Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:864-872.
39. Eyre-Walker, A., and M. Bulmer 1993. Reduced synonymous substitution rate at the start of enterobacterial genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 21:4599-4603.
40. Fuglsang, A. 2006. Estimating the "effective number of codons": the Wright way of determining codon homozygosity leads to superior estimates. Genetics 172:1301-1307. doi: 10.1534/genetics.105.049643.
41. Geraldes, A., P. Basset, B. Gibson, K. L. Smith, B. Harr, H. T. Yu, et al. 2008. Inferring the history of speciation in house mice from autosomal, X-linked, Y-linked and mitochondrial genes. Mol. Ecol. 17:5349-5363.
42. Geraldes, A., P. Basset, K. L. Smith, and M. W. Nachman 2011. Higher differentiation among subspecies of the house mouse (Mus musculus) in genomic regions with low recombination. Mol. Ecol. 20:4722-4736. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05285.x.
43. Gossmann, T. I., P. D. Keightley, and A. Eyre-Walker 2012. The effect of variation in the effective population size on the rate of adaptive molecular evolution in eukaryotes. Genome Biol. Evol. 4:658-667.
44. Gouy, M., and C. Gautier 1982. Codon usage in bacteria: correlation with gene expressivity. Nucleic Acids Res. 10:7055-7074.
45. Grantham, R., C. Gautier, and M. Gouy 1980a. Codon frequencies in 119 individual genes confirm consistent choices of degenerate bases according to genome type. Nucleic Acids Res. 8:1893-1912.
46. Grantham, R., C. Gautier, M. Gouy, R. Mercier, and A. Pave 1980b. Codon catalog usage and the genome hypothesis. Nucleic Acids Res. 8:r49-r62.
47. Grantham, R., C. Gautier, M. Gouy, M. Jacobzone, and R. Mercier 1981. Codon catalog usage is a genome strategy modulated for gene expressivity. Nucleic Acids Res. 9:r43-r74.
48. Gu, W., T. Zhou, and C. O. Wilke 2010. A universal trend of reduced mRNA stability near the translation-initiation site in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6:e1000664. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000664.
49. Haddrill, P. R., L. Loewe, and B. Charlesworth 2010. Estimating the parameters of selection on nonsynonymous mutations in Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. miranda. Genetics 185:1381-1396. doi: genetics.110.117614 [pii] 10.
50. Haddrill, P. R., K. Zeng, and B. Charlesworth 2011. Determinants of synonymous and nonsynonymous variability in three species of Drosophila. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28:1731-1743.
51. Hammer, M. F., A. E. Woerner, F. L. Mendez, J. C. Watkins, M. P. Cox, and J. D. Wall 2010. The ratio of human X chromosome to autosome diversity is positively correlated with genetic distance from genes. Nat. Genet. 42:830-831.
52. Hammer, M. F., F. L. Mendez, M. P. Cox, A. E. Woerner, and J. D. Wall 2008. Sex-biased evolutionary forces shape genomic patterns of human diversity. PLoS Genet. 4:e1000202. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000202.
53. Hense, W., N. Anderson, S. Hutter, W. Stephan, J. Parsch, and D. B. Carlini 2010. Experimentally increased codon bias in the Drosophila ADH gene leads to an increase in larval, but not adult, alcohol dehydrogenase activity. Genetics 184:547-555.
54. Hershberg, R., and D. A. Petrov 2008. Selection on codon bias. Annu. Rev. Genet. 42:287-299. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091442.
55. Hershberg, R., and D. A. Petrov 2009. General rules for optimal codon choice. PLoS Genet. 5:e1000556.
56. Hey, J., and R. M. Kliman 2002. Interactions between natural selection, recombination and gene density in the genes of Drosophila. Genetics 160:595-608.
57. Hill, W. G., and A. Robertson 1966. The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet. Res. 8:269-294.
58. Ikemura, T. 1981. Correlation between the abundance of Escherichia coli transfer RNAs and the occurrence of the respective codons in its protein genes. J. Mol. Biol. 146:1-21.
59. Ikemura, T. 1985. Codon usage and tRNA content in unicellular and multicellular organisms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2:13-24.
60. Ingvarsson, P. K. 2008. Molecular evolution of synonymous codon usage in Populus. BMC Evol. Biol. 8:307. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-8-307.
61. Ingvarsson, P. K. 2010. Natural selection on synonymous and nonsynonymous mutations shapes patterns of polymorphism in Populus tremula. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27:650-660. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp255.
62. Jensen, J. D., and D. Bachtrog 2011. Characterizing the influence of effective population size on the rate of adaptation: Gillespie's Darwin Domain. Genome Biol. Evol. 3:687-701.
63. Kaplan, N. L., R. R. Hudson, and C. H. Langley 1989. The "hitchhicking effect" revisited. Genetics 123:887-899.
64. Keane, T. M., L. Goodstadt, P. Danecek, M. A. White, K. Wong, B. Yalcin, et al. 2011. Mouse genomic variation and its effect on phenotypes and gene regulation. Nature 477:289-294.
65. Kimura, M. 1983. The neutral theory of molecular evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
66. Kliman, R. M. 2014. Evidence that natural selection on codon usage in Drosophila pseudoobscura varies across codons. G3 (Bethesda) 4:681-692.
67. Kliman, R. M., and J. Hey 1993. Reduced natural selection associated with low recombination in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1239-1258.
68. Kober, K. M., and G. H. Pogson 2013. Genome-wide patterns of codon bias are shaped by natural selection in the purple sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. G3 (Bethesda) 3:1069-1083.
69. Kondrashov, F. A., A. Y. Ogurtsov, and A. S. Kondrashov 2006. Selection in favor of nucleotides G and C diversifies evolution rates and levels of polymorphism at mammalian synonymous sites. J. Theor. Biol. 240:616-626. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.10.020.
70. Kousathanas, A., D. L. Halligan, and P. D. Keightley 2014. Faster-X Adaptive Protein Evolution in House Mice. Genetics 196:1131-1143.
71. Lawrie, D. S., P. W. Messer, R. Hershberg, and D. A. Petrov 2013. Strong purifying selection at synonymous sites in D. melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 9:e1003527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003527.
72. Lee, S., S. Weon, S. Lee, and C. Kang 2010. Relative codon adaptation index, a sensitive measure of codon usage bias. Evol. Bioinform. Online 6:47-55.
73. Lin, M. F., P. Kheradpour, S. Washietl, B. J. Parker, J. S. Pedersen, and M. Kellis 2011. Locating protein-coding sequences under selection for additional, overlapping functions in 29 mammalian genomes. Genome Res. 21:1916-1928. doi: 10.1101/gr.108753.110.
74. Loewe, L., and B. Charlesworth 2007. Background selection in single genes may explain patterns of codon bias. Genetics 175:1381-1393. doi: 10.1534/genetics.106.065557.
75. Löytynoja, A., and N. Goldman 2005. An algorithm for progressive multiple alignment of sequences with insertions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102:10557-10562.
76. Lu, J., and C. I. Wu 2005. Weak selection revealed by the whole-genome comparison of the X chromosome and autosomes of human and chimpanzee. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102:4063-4067. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0500436102.
77. Marais, G., and G. Piganeau 2002. Hill-Robertson interference is a minor determinant of variations in codon bias across Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans genomes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1399-1406.
78. Marais, G., D. Mouchiroud, and L. Duret 2001. Does recombination improve selection on codon usage? Lessons from nematode and fly complete genomes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 98:5688-5692.
79. Marais, G., T. Domazet-Loso, D. Tautz, and B. Charlesworth 2004. Correlated evolution of synonymous and nonsynonymous sites in Drosophila. J. Mol. Evol. 59:771-779. doi: 10.1007/s00239-004-2671-2.
80. Maside, X., A. W. Lee, and B. Charlesworth 2004. Selection on codon usage in Drosophila americana. Curr. Biol. 14:150-154.
81. Maynard Smith, J., and J. Haigh 1974. The hitchhicking effect of a favorable gene. Genet. Res. 23:23-25.
82. McDonald, J. H., and M. Kreitman 1991. Adaptive protein evolution at the Adh locus in Drosophila. Nature 351:652-654.
83. McVean, G. A., and J. Vieira 2001. Inferring parameters of mutation, selection and demography from patterns of synonymous site evolution in Drosophila. Genetics 157:245-257.
84. Meredith, R. W., J. E. Janečka, J. Gatesy, O. A. Ryder, C. A. Fisher, E. C. Teeling, et al. 2011. Impacts of the cretaceous terrestrial revolution and KPg extinction on mammal diversification. Science 334:521-524.
85. Michely, S., E. Toulza, L. Subirana, U. John, V. Cognat, L. Marechal-Drouard, et al. 2013. Evolution of codon usage in the smallest photosynthetic eukaryotes and their giant viruses. Genome Biol. Evol. 5:848-859. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evt053.
86. Moriyama, E. N., and D. L. Hartl 1993. Codon usage bias and base composition of nuclear genes in Drosophila. Genetics 134:847-858.
87. Moriyama, E. N., and J. R. Powell 1998. Gene length and codon usage bias in Drosophila melanogaster, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Escherichia coli. Nucleic Acids Res. 26:3188-3193.
88. Novembre, J. A. 2002. Accounting for background nucleotide composition when measuring codon usage bias. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:1390-1394.
89. Novoa, E. M., and L. Ribas de Pouplana 2012. Speeding with control: codon usage, tRNAs, and ribosomes. Trends Genet. 28:574-581. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.07.006.
90. Ohta, T. 1972. Evolutionary rate of cistrons and DNA divergence. J. Mol. Evol. 1:150-157. doi: 10.1007/BF01659161.
91. Otto, S. P., and T. Lenormand 2002. Resolving the paradox of sex and recombination. Nat. Rev. Genet. 3:252-261.
92. Pagel, M. 1999. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature 401:877-884. doi: 10.1038/44766.
93. Palidwor, G. A., T. J. Perkins, and X. Xia 2010. A general model of codon bias due to GC mutational bias. PLoS ONE 5:e13431. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013431.
94. Paradis, E., J. Claude, and K. Strimmer 2004. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289-290.
95. Parmley, J. L., and L. D. Hurst 2007. Exonic splicing regulatory elements skew synonymous codon usage near intron-exon boundaries in mammals. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:1600-1603. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm104.
96. Parmley, J. L., and M. A. Huynen 2009. Clustering of codons with rare cognate tRNAs in human genes suggests an extra level of expression regulation. PLoS Genet. 5:e1000548.
97. Phifer-Rixey, M., F. Bonhomme, P. Boursot, G. A. Churchill, J. Piálek, P. K. Tucker, et al. 2012. Adaptive evolution and effective population size in wild house mice. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29:2949-2955.
98. Plotkin, J. B., and G. Kudla 2011. Synonymous but not the same: the causes and consequences of codon bias. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12:32-42.
99. Qian, W., J.-R. Yang, N. M. Pearson, C. Maclean, and J. Zhang 2012. Balanced codon usage optimizes eukaryotic translational efficiency. PLoS Genet. 8:e1002603.
100. Qiu, S., R. Bergero, K. Zeng, and D. Charlesworth 2011a. Patterns of codon usage bias in Silene latifolia. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28:771-780.
101. Qiu, S., K. Zeng, T. Slotte, S. Wright, and D. Charlesworth 2011b. Reduced efficacy of natural selection on codon usage bias in selfing Arabidopsis and Capsella species. Genome Biol. Evol. 3:868-880. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evr085.
102. Ran, W., and P. G. Higgs 2010. The influence of anticodon-codon interactions and modified bases on codon usage bias in bacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 27:2129-2140. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq102.
103. Ran, W., and P. G. Higgs 2012. Contributions of speed and accuracy to translational selection in bacteria. PLoS ONE 7:e51652. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051652.
104. Rao, Y., et al. 2011. Mutation bias is the driving force of codon usage in the Gallus gallus genome. DNA Res. 18:499-512. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsr035.
105. dos Reis, M., R. Savva, and L. Wernisch 2004. Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection. Nucleic Acids Res. 32:5036-5044. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkh834.
106. Rocha, E. P. 2004. Codon usage bias from tRNA's point of view: redundancy, specialization, and efficient decoding for translation optimization. Genome Res. 14:2279-2286.
107. Shabalina, S. A., N. A. Spiridonov, and A. Kashina 2013. Sounds of silence: synonymous nucleotides as a key to biological regulation and complexity. Nucleic Acids Res. 41:2073-2094. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1205.
108. Shah, P., and M. A. Gilchrist 2011. Explaining complex codon usage patterns with selection for translational efficiency, mutation bias, and genetic drift. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108:10231-10236.
109. Sharp, P. M., E. Cowe, D. G. Higgins, D. C. Shields, K. H. Wolfe, and F. Wright 1988. Codon usage patterns in Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens; a review of the considerable within-species diversity. Nucleic Acids Res. 16:8207-8211.
110. Sharp, P. M., and W.-H. Li 1987. The codon adaptation index-a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. Nucleic Acids Res. 15:1281-1295.
111. Sharp, P. M., L. R. Emery, and K. Zeng 2010. Forces that influence the evolution of codon bias. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365:1203-1212. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0305.
112. Shields, D. C., P. M. Sharp, D. G. Higgins, and F. Wright 1988. "Silent" sites in Drosophila genes are not neutral: evidence of selection among synonymous codons. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:704-716.
113. Singh, N. D., J. C. Davis, and D. A. Petrov 2005. X-linked genes evolve higher codon bias in Drosophila and Caenorhabditis. Genetics 171:145-155.
114. Stergachis, A. B., E. Haugen, A. Shafer, W. Fu, B. Vernot, A. Reynolds, et al. 2013. Exonic transcription factor binding directs codon choice and affects protein evolution. Science 342:1367-1372.
115. Stoletzki, N. 2011. The surprising negative correlation of gene length and optimal codon use-disentangling translational selection from GC-biased gene conversion in yeast. BMC Evol. Biol. 11:93. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-93.
116. Stoletzki, N., and A. Eyre-Walker 2007. Synonymous codon usage in Escherichia coli: selection for translational accuracy. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:374-381. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msl166.
117. Sun, X., Q. Yang, and X. Xia 2013. An improved implementation of effective number of codons (nc). Mol. Biol. Evol. 30:191-196. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss201.
118. Thompson, J. D., D. G. Higgins, and T. J. Gibson 1994. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 22:4673-4680.
119. Urrutia, A. O., and L. D. Hurst 2001. Codon usage bias covaries with expression breadth and the rate of synonymous evolution in humans, but this is not evidence for selection. Genetics 159:1191-1199.
120. Urrutia, A. O., and L. D. Hurst 2003. The signature of selection mediated by expression on human genes. Genome Res. 13:2260-2264. doi: 10.1101/gr.641103.
121. Vicario, S., E. Moriyama, and J. Powell 2007. Codon usage in twelve species of Drosophila. BMC Evol. Biol. 7:226.
122. Vinogradov, A. E. 2001. Intron length and codon usage. J. Mol. Evol. 52:2-5. doi: 10.1007/s002390010128.
123. Waldman, Y. Y., T. Tuller, A. Keinan, and E. Ruppin 2011. Selection for translation efficiency on synonymous polymorphisms in recent human evolution. Genome Biol. Evol. 3:749-761.
124. Warnecke, T., and L. D. Hurst 2007. Evidence for a trade-off between translational efficiency and splicing regulation in determining synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:2755-2762. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm210.
125. White, M. A., C. Ané, C. N. Dewey, B. R. Larget, and B. A. Payseur 2009. Fine-scale phylogenetic discordance across the house mouse genome. PLoS Genet. 5:e1000729.
126. Won, Y. J., and J. Hey 2005. Divergence population genetics of chimpanzees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:297-307. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msi017.
127. Wright, F. 1990. The 'effective number of codons' used in a gene. Gene 87:23-29. doi: 0378-1119(90)90491-9 [pii].
128. Yang, Z. 2007. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24:1586-1591. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm088.
129. Yang, Z., and R. Nielsen 2008. Mutation-selection models of codon substitution and their use to estimate selective strengths on codon usage. Mol. Biol. Evol. 25:568-579. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm284.
130. Yang, J.-R., X. Chen, and J. Zhang 2014. Codon-by-codon modulation of translational speed and accuracy via mrna folding. PLoS Biol. 12:e1001910. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001910.
131. Zeng, K., and B. Charlesworth 2009. Estimating selection intensity on synonymous codon usage in a nonequilibrium population. Genetics 183:651-662.
132. Zeng, K., and B. Charlesworth 2010. Studying patterns of recent evolution at synonymous sites and intronic sites in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Mol. Evol. 70:116-128. doi: 10.1007/s00239-009-9314-6.
133. Zhang, Z., J. Li, P. Cui, F. Ding, A. Li, J. P. Townsend, et al. 2012. Codon Deviation Coefficient: a novel measure for estimating codon usage bias and its statistical significance. BMC Bioinformatics 13:43. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-43.
134. Zhao, Z., L. Jin, Y. X. Fu, M. Ramsay, T. Jenkins, E. Leskinen, et al. 2000. Worldwide DNA sequence variation in a 10-kilobase noncoding region on human chromosome 22. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97:11354-11358. doi: 10.1073/pnas.200348197.