Cargando…
An exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools
BACKGROUND: Not changing the native constitution of genes prior to their expression by a heterologous host can affect the amount of proteins synthesized as well as their folding, hampering their activity and even cell viability. Over the past decades, several strategies have been developed to optimi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10626681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37932726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12934-023-02230-y |
_version_ | 1785131386972143616 |
---|---|
author | Willems, Thomas Hectors, Wim Rombaut, Jeltien De Rop, Anne-Sofie Goegebeur, Stijn Delmulle, Tom De Mol, Maarten L. De Maeseneire, Sofie L. Soetaert, Wim K. |
author_facet | Willems, Thomas Hectors, Wim Rombaut, Jeltien De Rop, Anne-Sofie Goegebeur, Stijn Delmulle, Tom De Mol, Maarten L. De Maeseneire, Sofie L. Soetaert, Wim K. |
author_sort | Willems, Thomas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Not changing the native constitution of genes prior to their expression by a heterologous host can affect the amount of proteins synthesized as well as their folding, hampering their activity and even cell viability. Over the past decades, several strategies have been developed to optimize the translation of heterologous genes by accommodating the difference in codon usage between species. While there have been a handful of studies assessing various codon optimization strategies, to the best of our knowledge, no research has been performed towards the evaluation and comparison of codon harmonization algorithms. To highlight their importance and encourage meaningful discussion, we compared different open-source codon harmonization tools pertaining to their in silico performance, and we investigated the influence of different gene-specific factors. RESULTS: In total, 27 genes were harmonized with four tools toward two different heterologous hosts. The difference in %MinMax values between the harmonized and the original sequences was calculated (ΔMinMax), and statistical analysis of the obtained results was carried out. It became clear that not all tools perform similarly, and the choice of tool should depend on the intended application. Almost all biological factors under investigation (GC content, RNA secondary structures and choice of heterologous host) had a significant influence on the harmonization results and thus must be taken into account. These findings were substantiated using a validation dataset consisting of 8 strategically chosen genes. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the size of the dataset, no complex models could be developed. However, this initial study showcases significant differences between the results of various codon harmonization tools. Although more elaborate investigation is needed, it is clear that biological factors such as GC content, RNA secondary structures and heterologous hosts must be taken into account when selecting the codon harmonization tool. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12934-023-02230-y. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10626681 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106266812023-11-07 An exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools Willems, Thomas Hectors, Wim Rombaut, Jeltien De Rop, Anne-Sofie Goegebeur, Stijn Delmulle, Tom De Mol, Maarten L. De Maeseneire, Sofie L. Soetaert, Wim K. Microb Cell Fact Research BACKGROUND: Not changing the native constitution of genes prior to their expression by a heterologous host can affect the amount of proteins synthesized as well as their folding, hampering their activity and even cell viability. Over the past decades, several strategies have been developed to optimize the translation of heterologous genes by accommodating the difference in codon usage between species. While there have been a handful of studies assessing various codon optimization strategies, to the best of our knowledge, no research has been performed towards the evaluation and comparison of codon harmonization algorithms. To highlight their importance and encourage meaningful discussion, we compared different open-source codon harmonization tools pertaining to their in silico performance, and we investigated the influence of different gene-specific factors. RESULTS: In total, 27 genes were harmonized with four tools toward two different heterologous hosts. The difference in %MinMax values between the harmonized and the original sequences was calculated (ΔMinMax), and statistical analysis of the obtained results was carried out. It became clear that not all tools perform similarly, and the choice of tool should depend on the intended application. Almost all biological factors under investigation (GC content, RNA secondary structures and choice of heterologous host) had a significant influence on the harmonization results and thus must be taken into account. These findings were substantiated using a validation dataset consisting of 8 strategically chosen genes. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the size of the dataset, no complex models could be developed. However, this initial study showcases significant differences between the results of various codon harmonization tools. Although more elaborate investigation is needed, it is clear that biological factors such as GC content, RNA secondary structures and heterologous hosts must be taken into account when selecting the codon harmonization tool. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12934-023-02230-y. BioMed Central 2023-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10626681/ /pubmed/37932726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12934-023-02230-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Willems, Thomas Hectors, Wim Rombaut, Jeltien De Rop, Anne-Sofie Goegebeur, Stijn Delmulle, Tom De Mol, Maarten L. De Maeseneire, Sofie L. Soetaert, Wim K. An exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools |
title | An exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools |
title_full | An exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools |
title_fullStr | An exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools |
title_full_unstemmed | An exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools |
title_short | An exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools |
title_sort | exploratory in silico comparison of open-source codon harmonization tools |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10626681/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37932726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12934-023-02230-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT willemsthomas anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT hectorswim anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT rombautjeltien anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT deropannesofie anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT goegebeurstijn anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT delmulletom anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT demolmaartenl anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT demaeseneiresofiel anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT soetaertwimk anexploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT willemsthomas exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT hectorswim exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT rombautjeltien exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT deropannesofie exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT goegebeurstijn exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT delmulletom exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT demolmaartenl exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT demaeseneiresofiel exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools AT soetaertwimk exploratoryinsilicocomparisonofopensourcecodonharmonizationtools |