Cargando…

Coevolution between Stop Codon Usage and Release Factors in Bacterial Species

Three stop codons in bacteria represent different translation termination signals, and their usage is expected to depend on their differences in translation termination efficiency, mutation bias, and relative abundance of release factors (RF1 decoding UAA and UAG, and RF2 decoding UAA and UGA). In 1...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wei, Yulong, Wang, Juan, Xia, Xuhua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27297468
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw107
_version_ 1782448516956684288
author Wei, Yulong
Wang, Juan
Xia, Xuhua
author_facet Wei, Yulong
Wang, Juan
Xia, Xuhua
author_sort Wei, Yulong
collection PubMed
description Three stop codons in bacteria represent different translation termination signals, and their usage is expected to depend on their differences in translation termination efficiency, mutation bias, and relative abundance of release factors (RF1 decoding UAA and UAG, and RF2 decoding UAA and UGA). In 14 bacterial species (covering Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria, Actinobacteria and Spirochetes) with cellular RF1 and RF2 quantified, UAA is consistently over-represented in highly expressed genes (HEGs) relative to lowly expressed genes (LEGs), whereas UGA usage is the opposite even in species where RF2 is far more abundant than RF1. UGA usage relative to UAG increases significantly with P(RF2) [=RF2/(RF1 + RF2)] as expected from adaptation between stop codons and their decoders. P(RF2) is > 0.5 over a wide range of AT content (measured by P(AT3) as the proportion of AT at third codon sites), but decreases rapidly toward zero at the high range of P(AT3). This explains why bacterial lineages with high P(AT3) often have UGA reassigned because of low RF2. There is no indication that UAG is a minor stop codon in bacteria as claimed in a recent publication. The claim is invalid because of the failure to apply the two key criteria in identifying a minor codon: (1) it is least preferred by HEGs (or most preferred by LEGs) and (2) it corresponds to the least abundant decoder. Our results suggest a more plausible explanation for why UAA usage increases, and UGA usage decreases, with P(AT3), but UAG usage remains low over the entire P(AT3) range.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4989110
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49891102016-08-19 Coevolution between Stop Codon Usage and Release Factors in Bacterial Species Wei, Yulong Wang, Juan Xia, Xuhua Mol Biol Evol Discoveries Three stop codons in bacteria represent different translation termination signals, and their usage is expected to depend on their differences in translation termination efficiency, mutation bias, and relative abundance of release factors (RF1 decoding UAA and UAG, and RF2 decoding UAA and UGA). In 14 bacterial species (covering Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Cyanobacteria, Actinobacteria and Spirochetes) with cellular RF1 and RF2 quantified, UAA is consistently over-represented in highly expressed genes (HEGs) relative to lowly expressed genes (LEGs), whereas UGA usage is the opposite even in species where RF2 is far more abundant than RF1. UGA usage relative to UAG increases significantly with P(RF2) [=RF2/(RF1 + RF2)] as expected from adaptation between stop codons and their decoders. P(RF2) is > 0.5 over a wide range of AT content (measured by P(AT3) as the proportion of AT at third codon sites), but decreases rapidly toward zero at the high range of P(AT3). This explains why bacterial lineages with high P(AT3) often have UGA reassigned because of low RF2. There is no indication that UAG is a minor stop codon in bacteria as claimed in a recent publication. The claim is invalid because of the failure to apply the two key criteria in identifying a minor codon: (1) it is least preferred by HEGs (or most preferred by LEGs) and (2) it corresponds to the least abundant decoder. Our results suggest a more plausible explanation for why UAA usage increases, and UGA usage decreases, with P(AT3), but UAG usage remains low over the entire P(AT3) range. Oxford University Press 2016-09 2016-06-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4989110/ /pubmed/27297468 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw107 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Discoveries
Wei, Yulong
Wang, Juan
Xia, Xuhua
Coevolution between Stop Codon Usage and Release Factors in Bacterial Species
title Coevolution between Stop Codon Usage and Release Factors in Bacterial Species
title_full Coevolution between Stop Codon Usage and Release Factors in Bacterial Species
title_fullStr Coevolution between Stop Codon Usage and Release Factors in Bacterial Species
title_full_unstemmed Coevolution between Stop Codon Usage and Release Factors in Bacterial Species
title_short Coevolution between Stop Codon Usage and Release Factors in Bacterial Species
title_sort coevolution between stop codon usage and release factors in bacterial species
topic Discoveries
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4989110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27297468
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw107
work_keys_str_mv AT weiyulong coevolutionbetweenstopcodonusageandreleasefactorsinbacterialspecies
AT wangjuan coevolutionbetweenstopcodonusageandreleasefactorsinbacterialspecies
AT xiaxuhua coevolutionbetweenstopcodonusageandreleasefactorsinbacterialspecies