Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 65, Issue 4, pp 413–424 | Cite as

Strong Heterogeneity in Nucleotidic Composition and Codon Bias in the Pea Aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum) Shown by EST-Based Coding Genome Reconstruction

  • Claude Rispe
  • Fabrice Legeai
  • Jean-Pierre Gauthier
  • Denis Tagu


The aim of this study was to analyze patterns of nucleotidic composition and codon usage in the pea aphid genome (Acyrthosiphon pisum). A collection of 60,000 expressed sequence tags (ESTs) in the pea aphid has been used to automatically reconstruct 5809 coding sequences (CDSs), based on similarity with known proteins and on coding style recognition. Reconstructions were manually checked for ribosomal proteins, leading to tentatively reconstruct the nea-complete set of this category. Pea aphid coding sequences showed a shift toward AT (especially at the third codon position) compared to drosophila homologues. Genes with a putative high level of expression (ribosomal and other genes with high EST support) remained more GC3-rich and had a distinct codon usage from bulk sequences: they exhibited a preference for C-ending codons and CGT (for arginine), which thus appeared optimal for translation. However, the discrimination was not as strong as in drosophila, suggesting a reduced degree of translational selection. The space of variation in codon usage for A. pisum appeared to be larger than in drosophila, with a substantial fraction of genes that remained GC3-rich. Some of those (in particular some structural proteins) also showed high levels of codon bias and a very strong preference for C-ending codons, which could be explained either by strong translational selection or by other mechanisms. Finally, genomic traces were analyzed to build 206 fragments containing a full CDS, which allowed studying the correlations between GC contents of coding and those of noncoding (flanking and introns) sequences.


Codon bias Translational selection Ribosomal proteins 


  1. Akashi H (1996) Molecular evolution between Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans: reduced codon bias, faster rates of amino acid substitution, and larger proteins in D. melanogaster. Genetics 144:1297–1307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Akashi H (2003) Translational selection and yeast proteome evolution. Genetics 164:1291–1303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Antezana MA, Kreitman M (1999) The nonrandom location of synonymous codons suggests that reading frame-independent forces have patterned codon preferences. J Mol Evol 49:36–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennetzen JL, Hall BD (1982) Codon selection in yeast. J Biol Chem 257:3026–3031PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Besansky N (1993) Codon usage patterns in chromosomal and retrotransposon genes of the mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Insect Mol Biol 1:171–178PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulmer M (1991) The selection-mutation-drift theory of synonymous codon usage. Genome Biol 129:897–907Google Scholar
  7. Carlini DB, Chen Y, Stephan W (2001) The relationship between third-codon position nucleotide content, codon bias, mRNA secondary structure and gene expression in the drosophilid alcohol dehydrogenase genes Adh and Adhr. Genetics 159:623–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutter AD, Wasmuth JD, Blaxter ML (2006) The evolution of biased codon and amino acid usage in nematode genomes. Mol Biol Evol 23:2303–2315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Florea L, Hartzell G, Zhang Z, Rubin GM, Miller W (1998) A computer program for aligning a cDNA sequence with a genomic DNA sequence. Genome Res 8:967–974PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuglsang A (2006) Accounting for background nucleotide composition when measuring codon usage bias: brilliant idea, difficult in practice. Mol Biol Evol 23:1345–1347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garel J-P (1974) Functional adaptation of tRNA population. J Theor Biol 43:211–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huang X, Madan A (1999) CAP3: a DNA sequence assembly program. Genome Res 9:877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ikemura T (1981) Correlation between the abundance of Escherichia coli transfer RNAs and the occurence of the respective codons in its protein genes. J Mol Biol 146:1–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ikemura T (1982) Correlation between the abundance of yeast transfer RNAs and the occurence of the respective codons in protein genes. J Mol Evol 158:573–597Google Scholar
  16. Jabbari K, Bernardi G (2004) Comparative genomics of Anopheles gambiae and Drosophila melanogaster. Gene 333:183–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marais G, Piganeau G (2002) Hill-Robertson interference is a minor determinant of variations in codon bias across Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans genomes. Mol Biol Evol 19:1399–1406PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitreva M, Blaxter ML, Bird DM, McCarter JP (2005) Comparative genomics of nematodes. Trends Genet 21:573–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Musto H, Bernardi G (1999) Compositional correlations in the chicken genome. J Mol Evol 49:325–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Novembre JA (2002) Accounting for background nucleotide composition when measuring codon usage bias. Mol Biol Evol 19:1390–1394PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Perrière G, Thioulouse J (2002) Use and misuse of correspondance analysis in codon usage studies. Nucleic Acids Res 30:4548–4555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Powell JR, Moriyama EN (1997) Evolution of codon usage bias in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7784–7790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reis Md, Savva R, Wernisch L (2004) Solving the riddle of codon usage preferences: a test for translational selection. Nucleic Acids Res 32:5036–5044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rispe C, Pierre J-S (1998) Coexistence between cyclical parthenogens, obligate parthenogens and intermediates in a fluctuating environment. J Theor Biol 195:97–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sabater-Muñoz B, Legeai F, Rispe C, Bonhomme J, Dearden P, Dossat C, Duclert A, Gauthier J-P, Ducray D, Hunter W, Dang P, Kambhampati S, Martinez-Torres D, Cortes T, Moya A, et al. (2006) Large-scale gene discovery in the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Hemiptera). Genome Biology 7:R21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SAS Institute Inc. (1988) SAS/STAT user’s guide, release 6.03 edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  27. Savard J, Tautz D, Richards S, Weinstock GM, Gibbs RA, Werren JH, Tettelin H, Lercher MJ (2006) Phylogenomic analysis reveals bees and wasps (Hymenoptera) at the base of the radiation of Holometabolous insects. Genome Res 16:1334–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schiex T, Gouzy J, Moisan A, de Oliveira Y (2003) FrameD: a flexible program for quality check and gene prediction in prokaryotic genomes and noisy matured eukaryotic sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 31:3738–3741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmid K, Tautz D (1999) A comparison of homologous developmental genes from Drosophila and Tribolium reveals major differences in length and trinucleotide repeat content. J Mol Evol 49:558–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sémon M, Lobry JR, Duret L (2006) No evidence for tissue-specific adaptation of synonymous codon usage in humans. Mol Biol Evol 23:523–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharp PM, Tuohy TMF, Mosurski KR (1986) Codon usage in yeast: cluster analysis clearly differentiates highly and lowly expressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res 14:5125–5143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sharp PM, Bailes E, Grocock RJ, Peden JF, Sockett RE (2005) Variation in the strength of selected codon usage bias among bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res 33:1141–1153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shields DC, Sharp PM, Higgins DG, Wright F (1988) “Silent” sites in Drosophila genes are not neutral: evidence of selection among synonymous codons. Mol Biol Evol 5:704–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Urrutia AO, Hurst LD (2003) The signature of selection mediated by expression on human genes. Genome Res 13:2260–2264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wada A, Suyama A (1986) Local stability of DNA and RNA secondary structure and its relation to biological functions. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 47:113–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright F (1990) The ‘effective number of codons’ in a gene. Gene 87:23–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claude Rispe
    • 1
    • 3
  • Fabrice Legeai
    • 2
  • Jean-Pierre Gauthier
    • 1
  • Denis Tagu
    • 1
  1. 1.INRALe RheuFrance
  2. 2.INRAURGI-GenoPlante InfoInfobiogenFrance
  3. 3.INRADomaine de la MotteLe RheuFrance

Personalised recommendations