Codon usage and codon pair patterns in non-grass monocot genomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies on codon usage in monocots have focused on grasses, and observed patterns of this taxon were generalized to all monocot species. Here, non-grass monocot species were analysed to investigate the differences between grass and non-grass monocots.

METHODS

First, studies of codon usage in monocots were reviewed. The current information was then extended regarding codon usage, as well as codon-pair context bias, using four completely sequenced non-grass monocot genomes (Musa acuminata, Musa balbisiana, Phoenix dactylifera and Spirodela polyrhiza) for which comparable transcriptome datasets are available. Measurements were taken regarding relative synonymous codon usage, effective number of codons, derived optimal codon and GC content and then the relationships investigated to infer the underlying evolutionary forces.

KEY RESULTS

The research identified optimal codons, rare codons and preferred codon-pair context in the non-grass monocot species studied. In contrast to the bimodal distribution of GC3 (GC content in third codon position) in grasses, non-grass monocots showed a unimodal distribution. Disproportionate use of G and C (and of A and T) in two- and four-codon amino acids detected in the analysis rules out the mutational bias hypothesis as an explanation of genomic variation in GC content. There was found to be a positive relationship between CAI (codon adaptation index; predicts the level of expression of a gene) and GC3. In addition, a strong correlation was observed between coding and genomic GC content and negative correlation of GC3 with gene length, indicating a strong impact of GC-biased gene conversion (gBGC) in shaping codon usage and nucleotide composition in non-grass monocots.

CONCLUSION

Optimal codons in these non-grass monocots show a preference for G/C in the third codon position. These results support the concept that codon usage and nucleotide composition in non-grass monocots are mainly driven by gBGC.

© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected]