Evolution of Synonymous Codon Usage in the Mitogenomes of Certain Species of Bilaterian Lineage with Special Reference to Chaetognatha.
Chaetognatha is a minor phylum, comprising transparent marine invertebrates varying in size from 0.5 to 12 cm. The exact phylogenetic position of Chaetognatha in Metazoa has not been deciphered as some embryological characteristics place chaetognaths among deuterostomes and some morphological characteristics place these among protostomes. In this study, the major factors that drive synonymous codon usage bias (SCUB) in the mitogenomes of representative species of Chaetognatha and chosen species of other closely related phyla were analyzed. Spearman's rank correlation analyses of nucleotide contents suggested that mutational pressure and selection were acting in all examined mitogenomes but with varying intensities. The quantification of SCUB using effective number of codons vs. GC composition at the third codon position (GC3) plot suggested that mutational pressure due to GC compositional constraints might be one of the major influencing forces driving the SCUB in all chaetognaths except Sagitta enflata. However, neutrality plots revealed no significant correlation between GC3 and cumulative GC content at first and second codon positions (GC12) in all other species, except in Daphnia pulex. The parity rule 2 bias plot showed that significant compositional differences existed between C and G, as well as between A and T, contents in most of the protein-coding genes (PCGs) and, comparatively, A and T contents were used more proportionally than C and G contents in all chosen mitogenomes. Chi-square analysis revealed the presence of putative optimal codons in all species, except in S. enflata. The correspondence analysis identified that mutational pressure and selection act on the mitogenomes of the selected chaetognaths and other phyla with varying intensities. The cluster analysis based on relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) values revealed that RSCU variations in the PCGs of mitogenomes of chaetognaths are more comparable with those of protostomes. Apart from mutational pressure and selection, certain unknown selective forces might be acting on the PCGs in the analyzed mitogenomes as the phenomenon of SCUB could not be explained by mutational pressure, by selection, or by both.
Aushmath Biosciences, Administrative office, Devaraj Corner, Vadavalli Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sudeesh
S
Karumathil
Department of Biotechnology, Vignan's University (Vignan's Foundation for Science, Technology and Research University), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Vijaya R
VR
Dirisala
Department of Biotechnology, Vignan's University (Vignan's Foundation for Science, Technology and Research University), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Uthpala
U
Srinadh
Department of Biotechnology, Vignan's University (Vignan's Foundation for Science, Technology and Research University), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Valaboju
V
Nikhil
Department of Biotechnology, Vignan's University (Vignan's Foundation for Science, Technology and Research University), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India.
N Satya Sampath
NS
Kumar
Aushmath Biosciences, Administrative office, Devaraj Corner, Vadavalli Post, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Rahul R
RR
Nair
Chaetognatha; bilaterian lineage; evolution; mitogenomes; synonymous codon usage
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002 Dec;12(6):640-9
12433576
Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Nov;21(11):2122-9
15306659
Nucleic Acids Res. 1987 Feb 11;15(3):1281-95
3547335
J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2004 Feb;21(4):527-36
14692797
Nucleic Acids Res. 1987 Oct 12;15(19):8023-40
3118331
Virol J. 2011 Mar 30;8:146
21450075
Genetics. 1994 Mar;136(3):927-35
8005445
Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Apr 1;27(7):1578-84
10075987
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 Aug 16;12:340
21846353
Annu Rev Genet. 2008;42:287-99
18983258
Nucleic Acids Res. 1986;14 Suppl:r151-97
3703684
Mol Biol Evol. 2011 Oct;28(10):2731-9
21546353
Genome Res. 2003 Sep;13(9):2042-51
12952875
Nucleic Acids Res. 1994 Jul 11;22(13):2437-46
8041603
J Mol Evol. 1999 Jul;49(1):49-62
10368434
Genetics. 1991 Nov;129(3):897-907
1752426
BMC Evol Biol. 2008 Jul 31;8:224
18671878
Springerplus. 2013 Sep 30;2:492
24255825
Nucleic Acids Res. 1986 Jul 11;14(13):5125-43
3526280
Nucleic Acids Res. 1980 Jan 11;8(1):r49-r62
6986610
Genome Biol. 2008;9(6):R94
18533022
Genetics. 1993 Jul;134(3):847-58
8349115
Virus Res. 2010 Mar;148(1-2):31-43
19969032
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 15;9(1):e85631
24454907
Nucleic Acids Res. 1986 Oct 10;14(19):7737-49
3534792
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Sep 1;95(18):10698-703
9724767
Mitochondrial DNA. 2012 Dec;23(6):447-60
22943112
Mol Biol Rep. 2009 Nov;36(8):2039-46
19005776
Mol Biotechnol. 2011 Oct;49(2):116-28
21308422
Gene. 1990 Mar 1;87(1):23-9
2110097
Gene. 2014 Aug 10;546(2):162-71
24933001
Syst Biol. 2000 Sep;49(3):539-62
12116426
Bioinformation. 2007 Oct 06;2(2):62-3
18188422
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jul 22;94(15):7784-90
9223264
World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013 Nov;29(11):2015-24
23653263
Genome Biol. 2005;6(9):R75
16168082
Mitochondrion. 2006 Oct;6(5):258-62
16949352
J Mol Biol. 1992 Aug 5;226(3):609-21
1507219
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jul 20;101(29):10639-43
15249679
Nature. 2006 Mar 23;440(7083):561-4
16554824
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Mar 9;101(10):3480-5
14990797
Infect Genet Evol. 2011 Jul;11(5):1168-73
21382519
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 01;5(4):e9949
20376348
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Jul;30(7):1720-8
23564938
Mol Biol Evol. 1988 Nov;5(6):704-16
3146682
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 13;96(8):4482-7
10200288
Genome Biol. 2011 Oct 27;12(10):R109
22032172
Nucleic Acids Res. 1989 Jul 11;17(13):5029-39
2762118
Mol Biol Evol. 1985 Jan;2(1):13-34
3916708