World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 1585–1592 | Cite as

The factors dictating the codon usage variation among the genes in the genome of Burkholderia pseudomallei

Original Paper


Burkholderia pseudomallei is a recognized biothreat agent and the causative agent of melioidosis. Codon usage biases of all protein-coding genes (length greater than or equal to 300 bp) from the complete genome of B. pseudomallei K96243 have been analyzed. As B. pseudomallei is a GC-rich organism (68.5%), overall codon usage data analysis indicates that indeed codons ending in G and/or C are predominant in this organism. But multivariate statistical analysis indicates that there is a single major trend in the codon usage variation among the genes in this organism, which has a strong positively correlation with the expressivities of the genes. The majority of the lowly expressed genes are scattered towards the negative end of the major axis whereas the highly expressed genes are clustered towards the positive end. At the same time, from the results that there were two significant correlations between axis 1 coordinates and the GC, GC3s content at silent sites of each sequence, and clearly significant negatively correlations between the ‘Effective Number of Codons’ values and GC, GC3s content, we inferred that codon usage bias was affected by gene nucleotide composition also. In addition, some other factors such as the lengths of the genes as well as the hydrophobicity of genes also influence the codon usage variation among the genes in this organism in a minor way. At the same time, notably, 21 codons have been defined as ‘optimal codons’ of the B. pseudomallei. In summary, our work have provided a basic understanding of the mechanisms for codon usage bias and some more useful information for improving the expression of target genes in vivo and in vitro.


Burkholderia pseudomallei K96243 Codon usage Correspondence analysis 



Base pair


Foot-and-mouth disease


Foot-and-mouth disease virus


Relative synonymous codon usage


Effective number of codons


Correspondence analysis


The frequency of G+C at the synonymous third position of sense codons

A3S, T3S, G3S and C3S

The adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine content at synonymous third positions


Open reading frame


Standard deviation


  1. Bulmer M (1987) Coevolution of codon usage and transfer RNA abundance. Nature 325(6106):728–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bulmer M (1988) Are codon usage patterns in unicellular organisms determined by selection-mutation balance? J Evol Biol 1(1):15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Comeron JM, Kreitman M, Aguade M (1999) Natural selection on synonymous sites is correlated with gene length and recombination in Drosophila. Genetics 151(1):239–249Google Scholar
  4. Elisabeth RMT, Richard AC (2000) The contributions of replication orientation, gene direction, and signal sequences to base-composition asymmetries in bacterial genomes. J Mol Evol V50(3):249–257Google Scholar
  5. Eyre-Walker A (1996) Synonymous codon bias is related to gene length in Escherichia coli: selection for translational accuracy? Mol Biol Evol 13(6):864–872Google Scholar
  6. Fernandez V, Zavala A, Musto H (2001) Evidence for translational selection in codon usage in Echinococcus spp. Parasitology 123(Pt 2):203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gupta SK, Bhattacharyya TK, Ghosh TC (2004) Synonymous codon usage in Lactococcus lactis: mutational bias versus translational selection. J Biomol Struct Dyn 21(4):527–536Google Scholar
  8. Holden MTG, Titball RW, Peacock SJ et al (2004) From the cover: genomic plasticity of the causative agent of melioidosis, Burkholderia pseudomallei. PNAS 101(39):14240–14245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hou Z-C, Yang N (2000) Analysis of factors shaping S pneumoniae codon usage. Acta Genet Sin 29(8):747–752Google Scholar
  10. Ikemura T (1985) Codon usage transfer rna content and rate of synonymous substitution. In: Ohta T, Aoki K (eds) Population genetics and molecular evolution: papers marking the sixtieth birthday of Motoo Kimura. Japan Scientific Societies Press, Tokyo, Japan; Springer-Verlag, Berlin, West Germany; New York, NY, pp 385–406Google Scholar
  11. Kanaya S, Yamada Y, Kudo Y et al (1999) Studies of codon usage and tRNA genes of 18 unicellular organisms and quantification of Bacillus subtilis tRNAs: gene expression level and species-specific diversity of codon usage based on multivariate analysis. Gene 238(1):143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karlin S, Mrazek J (1996) What drives codon choices in human genes? J Mol Biol 262(4):459–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liu Q, Feng Y, Zhao X et al (2004) Synonymous codon usage bias in Oryza sativa. Plant Sci 167(1):101–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lobry JR, Gautier C (1994) Hydrophobicity, expressivity and aromaticity are the major trends of amino-acid usage in 999 Escherichia-coli chromosome-encoded genes. Nucleic Acids Res 22(15):3174–3180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ma J, Campbell A, Karlin S (2002) Correlations between shine-dalgarno sequences and gene features such as predicted expression levels and operon structures. J Bacteriol 184(20):5733–5745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nakamura M, Sugiura M (2007) Translation efficiencies of synonymous codons are not always correlated with codon usage in tobacco chloroplasts. Plant J Cell Mol Biol 49(1):128–134Google Scholar
  17. Naya H, Romero H, Carels N et al (2001) Translational selection shapes codon usage in the GC-rich genome of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. FEBS Lett 501(2–3):127–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Noboru S (1999) Two aspects of DNA base composition: G+C content and translation-coupled deviation from intra-strand rule of A = T and G = C. J Mol Evol V49(1):49–62Google Scholar
  19. Noguchi S, Satow Y (2006) Purification of human {beta}2-adrenergic receptor expressed in methylotrophic yeast Pichia pastoris. J Biochem (Tokyo) 140:799–804Google Scholar
  20. Plotkin JB, Dushoff J, Desai MM et al (2006) Codon usage and selection on proteins. J Mol Evol 63:635–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Romero H, Zavala A, Musto H (2000) Codon usage in Chlamydia trachomatis is the result of strand-specific mutational biases and a complex pattern of selective forces. Nucleic Acids Res 28(10):2084–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sau K, Gupta SK, Sau S et al (2005) Synonymous codon usage bias in 16 Staphylococcus aureus phages: implication in phage therapy. Virus Res 113(2):123–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sharp PM, Li W-H (1987a) The codon adaptation index-a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. Nucleic Acids Res 15(3):1281–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sharp PM, Li WH (1987b) The codon adaptation index—a measure of directional synonymous codon usage bias, and its potential applications. Nucleic Acids Res 15(3):1281–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharp PM, Stenico M, Peden JF et al (1993) Codon usage: mutational bias, translational selection, or both? Biochem Soc Trans 21(4):835–841Google Scholar
  26. Sueoka N, Kawanishi Y (2000) DNA G+C content of the third codon position and codon usage biases of human genes. Gene 261(1):53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wan XF, Xu D, Kleinhofs A et al (2004) Quantitative relationship between synonymous codon usage bias and GC composition across unicellular genomes. BMC Evol Biol 4:19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wright F (1990) The ‘effective number of codons’ used in a gene. Gene 87(1):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zavala A, Naya H, Romero H et al (2002) Trends in codon and amino acid usage in Thermotoga maritima. J Mol Evol 54(5):563–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jingchu University of TechnologyJingmenP.R. China
  2. 2.College of Life Science and TechnologySouthwest University for NationalitiesChengduP.R. China

Personalised recommendations