Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 73, Issue 3–4, pp 74–93 | Cite as

Interspecific and Intragenic Differences in Codon Usage Bias Among Vertebrate Myosin Heavy-Chain Genes

Article

Abstract

Synonymous codon usage bias is a broadly observed phenomenon in bacteria, plants, and invertebrates and may result from selection. However, the role of selective pressures in shaping codon bias is still controversial in vertebrates, particularly for mammals. The myosin heavy-chain (MyHC) gene family comprises multiple isoforms of the major force-producing contractile protein in cardiac and skeletal muscles. Slow and fast genes are tandemly arrayed on separate chromosomes, and have distinct patterns of functionality and expression in muscle. We analyze both full-length MyHC genes (~5400 bp) and a larger collection of partial sequences at the 3′ end (~500 bp). The MyHC isoforms are an interesting system in which to study codon usage bias because of their length, expression, and critical importance to organismal mobility. Codon bias and GC content differs among MyHC genes with regards to functional type, isoform, and position within the gene. Codon bias even varies by isoform within a species. We find evidence in favor of both chromosomal influences on nucleotide composition and selection against nonsense errors (SANE) acting on codon usage in MyHC genes. Intragenic variation in codon bias and elongation rate is significant, with a strong trend for increasing codon bias and elongation rate towards the 3′ end of the gene, although the trend is dependent upon the degeneracy class of the codons. Therefore, patterns of codon usage in MyHC genes are consistent with models supporting SANE as a major force shaping codon usage.

Keywords

Myosin heavy-chain Codon usage Muscle Translation selection Sequencing 

Abbreviations

MyHC

Myosin heavy-chain

GC

Total GC content as fraction

GC3

Third position GC as fraction

SANE

Selection against nonsense errors

RCBS

Relative codon bias score

SCUO

Synonymous codon usage order

c

Elongation rate

cH

Harmonic mean of elongation rate

ξObs

Observed expected cost of nonsense errors

ηObs

Observed expected cost of translation

References

  1. Adams GR, Caiozzo VJ, Baldwin KM (2003) Skeletal muscle unweighting: spaceflight and ground-based models. J Appl Physiol 95:2185–2201PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen JB, Rourke BC, Caiozzo VJ, Bennett AF, Hicks JW (2005) Physiology: postprandial cardiac hypertrophy in pythons. Nature 434:37–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin KM, Haddad F (2001) Effects of different activity and inactivity paradigms on myosin heavy chain gene expression in striated muscle. J Appl Physiol 90:345–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B 57(1):289–300Google Scholar
  5. Bernardi G (2000a) Isochores and the evolutionary genomics of vertebrates. Gene 241:3–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernardi G (2000b) The compositional evolution of vertebrate genomes. Gene 259:31–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulmer M (1988) Codon usage and intragenic position. J Theor Biol 133(1):67–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bulmer M (1991) The selection-mutation-drift theory of synonymous codon usage. Genetics 129(3):897–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Caiozzo VJ (2002) Plasticity of skeletal muscle phenotype: mechanical consequences. Muscle Nerve 26:740–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carbone A, Zinovyev A, Kepes F (2003) Codon adaptation index as a measure of dominating codon bias. Bioinformatics 19:2005–2015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chamary JV, Parmley JL, Hurst LD (2006) Hearing silence: non-neutral evolution at synonymous sites in mammals. Nat Rev Genet 7:98–108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan PP, Lowe TM (2008) GtRNAdb: a database of transfer RNA genes detected in genomic sequence. Nucleic Acids Res 37:D93–D97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen Q, Moore LA, Wick M, Bandman E (1997) Identification of a genomic locus containing three slow myosin heavy chain genes in the chicken. Biochem Biophys Acta 1353:148–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen SL, Lee W, Hottes AK, Shapiro L, McAdams HH (2004) Codon usage between genomes is constrained by genome-wide mutational processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:3480–3485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chiapello H, Lisacek F, Caboche M, Henaut A (1998) Codon usage and gene function are related in sequences of Arabidopsis thaliana. Gene 209:GC1–GC38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coghlan A, Wolfe KH (2000) Relationship of codon bias to mRNA concentration and protein length in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 16:1131–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Curran JF, Yarus M (1989) Rates of aminoacyl-trans-RNA selection at 29 sense codons in vivo. J Mol Biol 209:65–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Das S, Roymondal U, Sahoo S (2009) Analyzing gene expression from relative codon usage bias in Yeast genome: A statistical significance and biological relevance. Gene 443:121–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeBry RW, Marzluff WF (1994) Selection on silent sites in the rodent H3 histone gene family. Genetics 138(1):191–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. dos Reis M, Wernisch L, Savva R (2003) Unexpected correlations between gene expression and codon usage bias from microarray data for the whole Escherichia coli K-12 genome. Nucleic Acids Res 31:6976–6985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dunn KA, Bielawski JP, Yang Z (2001) Substitution rates in Drosophila nuclear genes: implications for translational selection. Genetics 157:295–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Duret L, Galtier N (2009) Biased gene conversion and the evolution of mammalian genomic landscapes. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 10:285–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duret L, Mouchiroud D (1999) Expression pattern and, surprisingly, gene length shape codon usage in Caenorhabditis, Drosophila, and Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:4482–4487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duret L, Semon M, Piganeau G, Mouchiroud D, Galtier N (2002) Vanishing GC-rich isochores in mammalian genomes. Genetics 162:1837–1847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Eyre-Walker A (1996) Synonymous codon bias is related to gene length in Escherichia coli: selection for translational accuracy? Mol Biol Evol 13(6):864–872PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Eyre-Walker A (1999) Evidence of selection on silent site base composition in mammals: potential implications for the evolution of isochores and junk DNA. Genetics 152:675–683PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Eyre-Walker A, Hurst LD (2001) The evolution of isochors. Nat Rev Genet 2(7):549–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fox AK, Tuch BB, Chuang JH (2008) Measuring the prevalence of regional mutation rates: an analysis of silent substitution in mammals, fungi, and insects. BMC Evol Biol 8:186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuglsang A (2003a) Strong associations between gene function and codon usage. Apmis 111:843–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fuglsang A (2003b) The effective number of codons for individual amino acids: some codons are more optimal than others. Gene 320:185–190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fuglsang A (2004) The ‘effective number of codons’ revisited. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 317:957–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fuglsang A (2006) Estimating the ‘effective number of codons’: the Wright way of determining codon homozygosity leads to superior estimates. Genetics 172:1301–1307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilchrist MA (2007) Combining models of protein translation and population genetics to predict protein production rates from codon usage patterns. Mol Biol Evol 24(11):2362–2372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gilchrist MA, Wagner A (2006) A model of protein translation including codon bias, nonsense errors, and ribosome recycling. J Theor Biol 239(4):417–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gilchrist MA, Shah P, Zaretzki R (2009) Measuring and detecting molecular adaptation in codon usage against nonsense errors during protein translation. Genetics 183:1493–1505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grantham R, Gautier C et al (1980) Codon catalog usage and the genome hypothesis. Nucleic Acids Res 8(1):R49–R62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gulick J, Kropp K, Robbins J (1987) The developmentally regulated expression of two linked myosin heavy-chain genes. Eur J Biochem 169:79–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Haddad F, Roy RR, Zhong H, Edgerton VR, Baldwin KM (2003) Atrophy responses to muscle inactivity. I. Cellular markers of protein deficits. J Appl Physiol 95:781–790PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Herbeck JT, Novembre J (2003) Codon usage patterns in cytochrome oxidase I across multiple insect orders. J Mol Evol 56:691–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Herbeck JT, Wall DP, Wernegreen JJ (2003) Gene expression level influences amino acid usage, but not codon usage, in the tsetse fly endosymbiont Wigglesworthia. Microbiology 149:2585–2596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hershberg R, Petrov DA (2008) Selection on codon bias. Annu Rev Genet 42:287–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hooper SD, Berg OG (2000) The decline of isochores in mammals: an assessment of the GC content variation along the mammalian phylogeny. Nucleic Acids Res 28:3517–3523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ikemura T (1981) Correlation between the abundance of Escherichia coli transfer RNAs and the occurrence of the respective codons in its protein genes: a proposal for a synonymous codon choice that is optimal for the E. coli translational system. J Mol Biol 151(3):389–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Karlin S, Mrazek J, Campbell AM (1998) Codon usages in different gene classes of the Escherichia coli genome. Mol Microbiol 29(6):1341–1355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kawabe A, Miyashita NT (2003) Patterns of codon usage bias in three dicot and four monocot plant species. Genes Genet Syst 78:343–352PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kudla G, Lipinski L, Caffin F, Helwak A, Zylicz M (2006) High guanine and cytosine content increases mRNA levels in mammalian cells. PLoS Biol 4(6):e180. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040180 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kurland CG (1992) Translational accuracy and the fitness of bacteria. Annu Rev Genet 26:29–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Larsen LK, Andreasen PH, Dreisig H, Palm L, Nielsen H, Engberg J, Kristiansen K (1999) Cloning and characterization of the gene encoding the highly expressed ribosomal protein l3 of the ciliated protozoan Tetrahymena thermophila. Evidence for differential codon usage in highly expressed genes. Cell Biol Int 23:551–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lavner Y, Kotlar D (2005) Codon bias as a factor in regulating expression via translation rate in the human genome. Gene 345:127–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leinwand LA, Fournier RE, Nadal-Ginard B, Shows TB (1983) Multigene family for sarcomeric myosin heavy chain in mouse and human DNA: localization on a single chromosome. Science 221(4612):766–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lercher MJ, Smith NG, Eyre-Walker A, Hurst LD (2002) The evolution of isochores: evidence from SNP frequency distributions. Genetics 162:1805–1810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Liljenstrom H, von Heijne G (1987) Translation rate modification by preferential codon usage: intragenic position effects. J Theor Biol 124:43–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lin K, Tan SB, Kolatkar PR, Epstein RJ (2003) Nonrandom intragenic variations in patterns of codon bias implicate a sequential interplay between transitional genetic drift and functional amino acid selection. J Mol Evol 57:538–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mahdavi V, Chambers AP, Nadal-Ginard B (1984) Cardiac alpha and beta myosin heavy chain genes are organized in tandem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:2626–2630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Matsuoka R, Yoshida MC, Kanda N, Kimura M, Ozasa H, Takao A (1989) Human cardiac myosin heavy chain gene mapped within chromosome region 14q11.2–q13. Am J Med Genet 32:279–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McGuigan K, Phillips PC, Postlethwait JH (2004) Evolution of sarcomeric myosin heavy chain genes: evidence from fish. Mol Biol Evol 21(6):1042–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McWeeney SK, Valdes AM (1999) Codon usage bias and base composition in MHC genes in humans and common chimpanzees. Immunogenetics 49(4):272–279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Medler S, Mykles DL (2003) Analysis of myofibrillar proteins and transcripts in adult skeletal muscles of the American lobster Homarus americanus: variable expression of myosins, actin and troponins in fast, slow-twitch and slow-tonic fibres. J Exp Biol 206:3557–3567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Menninger JR (1978) Accumulation as peptidyl-transfer RNA of isoaccepting transfer-RNA families in Escherichia coli with temperature-sensitive peptiidyl-transfer RNA hydrolase. J Biol Chem 253:6808–6813PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Merkl R (2003) A survey of codon and amino acid frequency bias in microbial genomes focusing on translational efficiency. J Mol Evol 57:453–466PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Meyers LA, Ancel FD, Michael L (2005) Evolution of genetic potential. PLoS Comput Biol 1(3):e32. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moriyama EN, Powell JR (1997) Codon usage bias and tRNA abundance in Drosophila. J Mol Evol 45:514–552PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Morlais I, Severson DW (2003) Intraspecific DNA variation in nuclear genes of the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Insect Mol Biol 12:631–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Musto H, Cruveiller S et al (2001) Translational selection on codon usage in Xenopus laevis. Mol Biol Evol 18(9):1703–1707PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Perriére G, Thioulouse J (2002) Use and misuse of correspondence analysis in codon usage studies. Nucleic Acids Res 30(20):4548–4555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Plotkin JB, Dushoff J, Desai MM, Fraser HB (2006) Codon usage and selection on proteins. J Mol Evol 63:635–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Qin K, Kemp J, Yip M-Y, Lam-Po-Tang PRL, Hoh JFY, Morris BJ (1990) Localization of human cardiac β-myosin heavy chain gene (MYH7) to chromosome 14q12 by in situ hybridization. Cytogenet Cell Genet 54:74–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Qin H, Wu WB, Comeron JM, Kreitman M, Li WH (2004) Intragenic spatial patterns of codon usage bias in prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes. Genetics 168:2245–2260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Resch AM, Carmel L, Mariño-Ramírez L, Ogurtsov AY, Shabalina SA, Rogozin IB, Koonin EV (2007) Widespread positive selection in synonymous sites of mammalian genes. Mol Biol Evol 24(8):1821–1831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Romero H, Zavala A et al (2003) The influence of translational selection on codon usage in fishes from the family Cyprinidae. Gene 317(1–2):141–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rourke BC, Qin A, Haddad F, Baldwin KM, Caiozzo VJ (2004) Cloning and sequencing of myosin heavy chain isoform cDNAs in golden-mantled ground squirrels: effects of hibernation on mRNA expression. J Appl Physiol 97(5):1985–1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rourke BC, Cotton CJ, Harlow HJ, Caiozzo VJ (2006) Maintenance of slow type I myosin protein and mRNA expression in overwintering prairie dogs (Cynomys leucurus and ludovicianus) and black bears (Ursus amaricanus). J Comp Physiol B 176(7):709–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sänger AM, Stoiber W (2001) Muscle fiber diversity and plasticity. In: Johnston I (ed) Muscle development and growth. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 187–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Semon M, Lobry JR, Duret L (2005) No evidence for tissue-specific adaptation of synonymous codon usage in humans. Mol Biol Evol 23(3):523–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shukle RH (2000) Molecular and cytological characterization of an actin gene from Hessian Fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 93:1164–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Singer GA, Hickey DA (2003) Thermophilic prokaryotes have characteristic patterns of codon usage, amino acid composition and nucleotide content. Gene 317:39–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smith NG, Eyre-Walker A (2001) Synonymous codon bias is not caused by mutation bias in G+C-rich genes in humans. Mol Biol Evol 18(6):982–986PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Sueoka N, Kawanishi Y (2000) DNA G+C content of the third codon position and codon usage biases of human genes. Gene 261(1):53–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Supek F, Vlahoviček K (2005) Comparison of codon usage measures and their applicability in prediction of microbial gene expressivity. BMC Bioinform 6:182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Suzuki H, Saito R, Tomita M (2005) A problem in multivariate analysis of codon usage data and a possible solution. FEBS Lett 579:6499–6504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thomason DB, Herrick RE, Surdyka D, Baldwin KM (1987a) Time course of soleus muscle myosin expression during hindlimb suspension and recovery. J Appl Physiol 63:130–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Thomason DB, Herrick RE, Baldwin KM (1987b) Activity influences on soleus muscle myosin during rodent hindlimb suspension. J Appl Physiol 63:138–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Urrutia AO, Hurst LD (2003) The signature of selection mediated by expression on human genes. Genome Res 13(10):2260–2264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wan XF, Xu D, Zhou J (2006) CodonO: a new informatics method measuring synonymous codon usage bias. Int J Gen Syst 35:109–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weiss A, McDonough D, Wertman B, Acakpo-Satchivi L, Montgomery K, Kucherlapati R, Leinwand L, Krauter K (1999) Organization of human and mouse skeletal myosin heavy chain gene clusters is highly conserved. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:2958–2963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Whitacre JM (2010) Degeneracy: a link between evolvability, robustness and complexity in biological systems. BMC J Theor Biol Med Modell 7:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wright F (1990) The ‘effective number of codons’ used in a gene. Gene 87:23–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yang Z, Nielsen R (2008) Mutation-selection models of codon substitution and their use to estimate selective strengths on codon usage. Mol Biol Evol 25(3):568–579PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesCalifornia State UniversityLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations