Method to Identify Silent Codon Mutations That May Alter Peptide Elongation Kinetics and Co-translational Protein Folding

Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1647)


Due to the redundancy of the protein genetic code, mutational changes in the second or third nucleotide of an existing codon may not change the amino acid specification of the resulting modified codon. When peptide primary sequence is unchanged by mutation, that mutation is assumed to have no functional consequences. However, for one key gene involved in drug transport, MDR-1, several silent, synonymous mutations have been shown to alter protein structure and substrate affinity (Kimchi-Sarfaty et al., Science 315:525–528, 2007). The mechanism of these changes, in the absence of primary amino acid sequence changes, appears to be the change in abundance of the transfer RNA molecules complementary to the mutated, although synonymous, new codon. Transfer RNA abundance is proportional to the frequency of each codon as found in human protein coding DNA (Sharp et al., Nucleic Acids Res 14(13):5125–5143, 1986). These frequencies have been mapped for many thousands of human proteins (Nakamura et al., Nucleic Acids Res 28:292, 2000). This method analyzes silent codon mutations in whole genome data. Where there are large changes in codon frequency resulting from codon sequence mutation, the affected proteins are mapped to potential disease pathways, in the context of clinical phenotypes associated with the patient genome data.

Key words

Co-translational protein folding Peptide elongation kinetics Synonymous codon mutation Human whole genome sequence data 



This work was supported by the SIUE School of Pharmacy Research Grant program for FY16 and FY17, along with additional student stipend support from the SIUE FY17 Undergraduate Research and Creative Activities Program.


  1. 1.
    Kimchi-Sarfaty C, Oh J, Saune Z et al (2007) A “silent” polymorphism in the MDR1 gene changes substrate specificity. Science 315:525–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharp PM, Tuohy TMF, Mosurski KR (1986) Codon usage in yeast: cluster analysis clearly differentiates highly and lowly expressed genes. Nucleic Acids Res 14(13):5125–5143CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nakamura Y, Gojobori T, Ikemura T (2000) Codon usage tabulated from the international DNA sequence databases: status for the year 2000. Nucleic Acids Res 28:292CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Purvis IJ, Bettany AJ, Santiago TC et al (1987) The efficiency of folding of some proteins is increased by controlled rates of translation in vivo. A hypothesis. J Mol Biol 193:413–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frydman J (2001) Folding of newly translated proteins in vivo: the role of molecular chaperones. Annu Rev Biochem 70:603–606CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Komar A (2008) A pause for thought along the co-translational folding pathway. Trends Biochem Sci 34(1):16–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Komar A (2007) NPs, Silent but not invisible. Science 315:456–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cingolani P, Platts A, Wang le L et al (2012) A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin) 6(2):80–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Draghici S, Khatri P, Tarca A et al (2007) A systems biology approach for pathway level analysis. Genome Res 17(10):1537–1545CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of PharmacySouthern Illinois University EdwardsvilleEdwardsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations