Genomics & Informatics

Korea Genome Organization (한국유전체학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Synonymous Codon Usage Controls Various Molecular Aspects

  • Im, Eu-Hyun (Division of Biomedical Convergence, College of Biomedical Science, and Institute of Bioscience & Biotechnology, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Choi, Sun Shim (Division of Biomedical Convergence, College of Biomedical Science, and Institute of Bioscience & Biotechnology, Kangwon National University)
  • Received : 2017.08.18
  • Accepted : 2017.09.25
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Synonymous sites are generally considered to be functionally neutral. However, there are recent contradictory findings suggesting that synonymous alleles might have functional roles in various molecular aspects. For instance, a recent study demonstrated that synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms have a similar effect size as nonsynonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms in human disease association studies. Researchers have recognized synonymous codon usage bias (SCUB) in the genomes of almost all species and have investigated whether SCUB is due to random nucleotide compositional bias or to natural selection of any functional exposure generated by synonymous mutations. One of the most prominent observations on the non-neutrality of synonymous codons is the correlation between SCUB and levels of gene expression, such that highly expressed genes tend to have a higher preference toward so-called optimal codons than lowly expressed genes. In relation, it is known that amounts of cognate tRNAs that bind to optimal codons are significantly higher than the amounts of cognate tRNAs that bind to non-optimal codons in genomes. In the present paper, we review various functions that synonymous codons might have other than regulating expression levels.

Keywords

References

  1. Barreiro LB, Laval G, Quach H, Patin E, Quintana-Murci L. Natural selection has driven population differentiation in modern humans. Nat Genet 2008;40:340-345. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.78
  2. Ng PC, Henikoff S. SIFT: Predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31:3812-3814. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkg509
  3. Nei M, Gojobori T. Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions. Mol Biol Evol 1986;3:418-426.
  4. King JL, Jukes TH. Non-Darwinian evolution. Science 1969;164:788-798. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.164.3881.788
  5. Yang Z. PAML 4: phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. Mol Biol Evol 2007;24:1586-1591. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm088
  6. Ramensky V, Bork P, Sunyaev S. Human non-synonymous SNPs: server and survey. Nucleic Acids Res 2002;30:3894-3900. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkf493
  7. Thomas RK, Baker AC, Debiasi RM, Winckler W, Laframboise T, Lin WM, et al. High-throughput oncogene mutation profiling in human cancer. Nat Genet 2007;39:347-351. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1975
  8. Hampe J, Franke A, Rosenstiel P, Till A, Teuber M, Huse K, et al. A genome-wide association scan of nonsynonymous SNPs identifies a susceptibility variant for Crohn disease in ATG16L1. Nat Genet 2007;39:207-211. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1954
  9. Romeo S, Kozlitina J, Xing C, Pertsemlidis A, Cox D, Pennacchio LA, et al. Genetic variation in PNPLA3 confers susceptibility to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Nat Genet 2008;40:1461-1465. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.257
  10. Calabrese R, Capriotti E, Fariselli P, Martelli PL, Casadio R. Functional annotations improve the predictive score of human disease-related mutations in proteins. Hum Mutat 2009;30:1237-1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.21047
  11. Ng SB, Buckingham KJ, Lee C, Bigham AW, Tabor HK, Dent KM, et al. Exome sequencing identifies the cause of a mendelian disorder. Nat Genet 2010;42:30-35. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.499
  12. Li MX, Kwan JS, Bao SY, Yang W, Ho SL, Song YQ, et al. Predicting mendelian disease-causing non-synonymous single nucleotide variants in exome sequencing studies. PLoS Genet 2013;9:e1003143. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003143
  13. Plotkin JB, Kudla G. Synonymous but not the same: the causes and consequences of codon bias. Nat Rev Genet 2011;12:32-42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2899
  14. Doherty A, McInerney JO. Translational selection frequently overcomes genetic drift in shaping synonymous codon usage patterns in vertebrates. Mol Biol Evol 2013;30:2263-2267. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst128
  15. Komar AA. The Yin and Yang of codon usage. Hum Mol Genet 2016;25:R77-R85. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddw207
  16. Ikemura T. Codon usage and tRNA content in unicellular and multicellular organisms. Mol Biol Evol 1985;2:13-34.
  17. Chamary JV, Parmley JL, Hurst LD. Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites in mammals. Nat Rev Genet 2006;7:98-108. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1770
  18. Chen SL, Lee W, Hottes AK, Shapiro L, McAdams HH. Codon usage between genomes is constrained by genome-wide mutational processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2004;101:3480-3485. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307827100
  19. Nabiyouni M, Prakash A, Fedorov A. Vertebrate codon bias indicates a highly GC-rich ancestral genome. Gene 2013;519:113-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2013.01.033
  20. Lavner Y, Kotlar D. Codon bias as a factor in regulating expression via translation rate in the human genome. Gene 2005;345:127-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2004.11.035
  21. Quax TE, Claassens NJ, Soll D, van der Oost J. Codon bias as a means to fine-tune gene expression. Mol Cell 2015;59:149-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2015.05.035
  22. Zhou Z, Dang Y, Zhou M, Li L, Yu CH, Fu J, et al. Codon usage is an important determinant of gene expression levels largely through its effects on transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016;113:E6117-E6125. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606724113
  23. Tuller T, Carmi A, Vestsigian K, Navon S, Dorfan Y, Zaborske J, et al. An evolutionarily conserved mechanism for controlling the efficiency of protein translation. Cell 2010;141:344-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.03.031
  24. Kanaya S, Yamada Y, Kinouchi M, Kudo Y, Ikemura T. Codon usage and tRNA genes in eukaryotes: correlation of codon usage diversity with translation efficiency and with CG-dinucleotide usage as assessed by multivariate analysis. J Mol Evol 2001;53:290-298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002390010219
  25. Presnyak V, Alhusaini N, Chen YH, Martin S, Morris N, Kline N, et al. Codon optimality is a major determinant of mRNA stability. Cell 2015;160:1111-1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.029
  26. Drummond DA, Wilke CO. Mistranslation-induced protein misfolding as a dominant constraint on coding-sequence evolution. Cell 2008;134:341-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.05.042
  27. Comeron JM, Kreitman M, Aguade M. Natural selection on synonymous sites is correlated with gene length and recombination in Drosophila. Genetics 1999;151:239-249.
  28. Marais G, Mouchiroud D, Duret L. Does recombination improve selection on codon usage? Lessons from nematode and fly complete genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:5688-5692. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.091427698
  29. Zhou T, Lu ZH, Sun X. The correlation between recombination rate and codon bias in yeast mainly results from mutational bias associated with recombination rather than Hill-Robertson Interference. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2005;5:4787-4790.
  30. Novoa EM, Pavon-Eternod M, Pan T, Ribas de Pouplana L. A role for tRNA modifications in genome structure and codon usage. Cell 2012;149:202-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.050
  31. Zalucki YM, Beacham IR, Jennings MP. Biased codon usage in signal peptides: a role in protein export. Trends Microbiol 2009;17:146-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2009.01.005
  32. Clarke TF 4th, Clark PL. Increased incidence of rare codon clusters at 5' and 3' gene termini: implications for function. BMC Genomics 2010;11:118. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-11-118
  33. Zhou M, Guo J, Cha J, Chae M, Chen S, Barral JM, et al. Non-optimal codon usage affects expression, structure and function of clock protein FRQ. Nature 2013;495:111-115. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11833
  34. Michel F, Dujon B. Conservation of RNA secondary structures in two intron families including mitochondrial-, chloroplastand nuclear-encoded members. EMBO J 1983;2:33-38.
  35. Takahashi A. Effect of exonic splicing regulation on synonymous codon usage in alternatively spliced exons of Dscam. BMC Evol Biol 2009;9:214. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-9-214
  36. Sharp PM, Tuohy TM, Mosurski KR. Codon usage in yeast: cluster analysis clearly differentiates highly and lowly expressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res 1986;14:5125-5143. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/14.13.5125
  37. Warnecke T, Hurst LD. Evidence for a trade-off between translational efficiency and splicing regulation in determining synonymous codon usage in Drosophila melanogaster. Mol Biol Evol 2007;24:2755-2762. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm210
  38. Stergachis AB, Haugen E, Shafer A, Fu W, Vernot B, Reynolds A, et al. Exonic transcription factor binding directs codon choice and affects protein evolution. Science 2013;342:1367-1372. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243490
  39. Kepes F. The “＋70 pause”: hypothesis of a translational control of membrane protein assembly. J Mol Biol 1996;262:77-86. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmbi.1996.0500
  40. Zhou T, Weems M, Wilke CO. Translationally optimal codons associate with structurally sensitive sites in proteins. Mol Biol Evol 2009;26:1571-1580. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msp070
  41. Zhang G, Hubalewska M, Ignatova Z. Transient ribosomal attenuation coordinates protein synthesis and co-translational folding. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2009;16:274-280. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1554
  42. Saunders R, Deane CM. Synonymous codon usage influences the local protein structure observed. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38:6719-6728. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq495