↓ Skip to main content

A multiobjective approach to the genetic code adaptability problem

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A multiobjective approach to the genetic code adaptability problem
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0480-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lariza Laura de Oliveira, Paulo SL de Oliveira, Renato Tinós

Abstract

The organization of the canonical code has intrigued researches since it was first described. If we consider all codes mapping the 64 codes into 20 amino acids and one stop codon, there are more than 1.51×10(84) possible genetic codes. The main question related to the organization of the genetic code is why exactly the canonical code was selected among this huge number of possible genetic codes. Many researchers argue that the organization of the canonical code is a product of natural selection and that the code's robustness against mutations would support this hypothesis. In order to investigate the natural selection hypothesis, some researches employ optimization algorithms to identify regions of the genetic code space where best codes, according to a given evaluation function, can be found (engineering approach). The optimization process uses only one objective to evaluate the codes, generally based on the robustness for an amino acid property. Only one objective is also employed in the statistical approach for the comparison of the canonical code with random codes. We propose a multiobjective approach where two or more objectives are considered simultaneously to evaluate the genetic codes. In order to test our hypothesis that the multiobjective approach is useful for the analysis of the genetic code adaptability, we implemented a multiobjective optimization algorithm where two objectives are simultaneously optimized. Using as objectives the robustness against mutation with the amino acids properties polar requirement (objective 1) and robustness with respect to hydropathy index or molecular volume (objective 2), we found solutions closer to the canonical genetic code in terms of robustness, when compared with the results using only one objective reported by other authors. Using more objectives, more optimal solutions are obtained and, as a consequence, more information can be used to investigate the adaptability of the genetic code. The multiobjective approach is also more natural, because more than one objective was adapted during the evolutionary process of the canonical genetic code. Our results suggest that the evaluation function employed to compare genetic codes should consider simultaneously more than one objective, in contrast to what has been done in the literature.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 21 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 17%
Computer Science 4 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 13%
Engineering 2 9%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2015.
All research outputs
#17,748,987
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,930
of 7,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,412
of 255,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#115
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.