Skip to main content

Analysis of synonymous codon usage bias in 09H1N1

Virologica Sinica volume 25, pages 329–340 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

A novel subtype of influenza A virus 09H1N1 has rapidly spread across the world. Evolutionary analyses of this virus have revealed that 09H1N1 is a triple reassortant of segments from swine, avian and human influenza viruses. In this study, we investigated factors shaping the codon usage bias of 09H1N1 and carried out cluster analysis of 60 strains of influenza A virus from different subtypes based on their codon usage bias. We discovered that more preferentially used codons of 09H1N1 are A-ended or U-ended, and the intra-genomic codon usage bias of 09H1N1 is quite low. Base composition constraint, dinucleotide biases and translational selection are the main factors influencing the codon usage bias of 09H1N1. At the genome level, we find that the codon usage bias of 09H1N1 is similar to H1N1 (A/swine/Kansas/77778/2007H1N1), H9N2 from Asia, H1N2 from Asia and North America and H3N2 from North America. Our results provide insight for understanding the processes governing evolution, regulation of gene expression, and revealing the evolution of 09H1N1.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Bao Y, Bolotov P, Dernovoy D, et al. 2008. The Influenza Virus Resource at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. J Virol, 82(2): 596–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Basak S, Banerjee T, Gupta S K. 2004. Investigation on the causes of codon and amino acid usages variation between thermophilic Aquifex aeolicus and mesophilic Bacillus subtilis. J Biomol Struct Dyn, 22(2): 205–214.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Charif D, Lobry J. 2007. SeqinR 1.0-2. A Contributed Package to the R Project for Statistical Computing Devoted to Biological Sequences Retrieval and Analysis. In: Structural Approaches to Sequence Evolution (Bastolla U, Porto M, Roman E, Vendruscolo M, eds.), Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, p207–232.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Dray S, Dufour A B. 2007. The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw, 22(4): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Garten R J, Davis C T, Russell C A. 2009. Antigenic and Genetic Characteristics of Swine-Origin 2009 A (H1N1) influenza Viruses Circulating in Humans. Science, 325(5937): 197–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gu W, Zhou T, Ma J. 2004. The relationship between synonymous codon usage and protein structure in Escherichia coli and Homo sapiens. BioSystems,73(2): 89–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gupta S K, Ghosh T C. 2001.Gene expressivity is the main factor in dictating the codon usage variation among the genes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Gene, 273(1): 63–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ihaka R, Gentleman R. 1996. R: A language for data analysis and graphics. J Comp Graph Stat, 5(3): 299–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jenkins G M, Holmes E C. 2003. The extent of codon usage biases in human RNA viruses and its evolutionary origin. Virus Res, 92(1): 1–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karlin S, Doerfler W, Cardon L R. 2007. Why is CpG suppressed in the genomes of virtually all small eukaryotic viruses but not in those of large eukaryotic viruses? J Virol, 68(5): 2889–2897.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kyte J, Doolittle R F. 1982. A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein. J Mol Biol, 157(1): 105–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lobry J R, Gautier C. 1994. Hydrophobicity, expressivity and aromaticity are the major trends of amino acid usage in 999 Escherichia coli chromosome encoded genes. Nucl Acids Res, 22(15): 3174–3180.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Marais G. 2001.Duret L. Synonymous codon usage, accuracy of translation, and gene length in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Mol Evol, 52(3): 275–280.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McInerney J O. 1998. Replicational and transcriptional selection on codon usage in Borrelia burgdorferi. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 95(18): 10698–10703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mooers A ø, Holmes E C. 2000. The evolution of base composition and phylogenetic inference. Trends Ecol Evol (Amst.), 15(9): 365–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Perriere G, Thioulouse J. 2002. Use and misuse of correspondence analysis in codon usage studies, Nucl Acids Res, 30(20): 4548–4555.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharp P M, Tuohy T M, Mosurski K R, et al. 1986. Codon usage in yeast: cluster analysis clearly differentiates highly and lowly expressed genes. Nucl Acids Res, 14(13): 5125–5143.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Suzuki H, Brown C J, Forney L J. 2008. Comparison of correspondence analysis methods for synonymous codon usage in bacteria. DNA Res, 15(6): 357–365.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tao P, Dai L, Luo M. 2009. Analysis of synonymous codon usage in classical swine fever virus. Virus Genes, 38(1): 104–112.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Trifonov V, Khiabanian H, Greenbaum B, et al. 2009. The origin of the recent swine influenza A (H1N1) virus infecting humans. Euro Surveill, 14(17): pii=19193. Available online. http://www.eurosurveillance.org/View-Article.aspx?Article Id=19193.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Trifonov V, Khiabanian H, Rabadan R. 2009. Geographic Dependence, Surveillance, and Origins of the 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Virus. N Engl J Med, 361(2): 115–119.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wright F. 1990. The’ effective number of codons’ used in a gene. Gene, 87(1): 23–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhou T, Gu W, Ma J, et al. 2005. Analysis of synonymous codon usage in H5N1 virus and other influenza A viruses. BioSystems, 81(1): 77–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Beijing Institute of Radiation Medicine, Beijing, 100850, China

    Zhen-peng Li, De-quan Ying, Peng Li, Fei Li, Xiao-chen Bo & Sheng-qi Wang

Authors
  1. Zhen-peng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. De-quan Ying
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peng Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiao-chen Bo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sheng-qi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xiao-chen Bo or Sheng-qi Wang.

Additional information

These authors contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Li, Zp., Ying, Dq., Li, P. et al. Analysis of synonymous codon usage bias in 09H1N1. Virol. Sin. 25, 329–340 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-010-3123-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12250-010-3123-3

Key words

  • 09H1N1
  • Correspondence analysis
  • Codon usage bias