Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (869 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The frequency of occurrence, in a specific organism's DNA sequence, of one of several potential synonymous codons that code for a particular amino acid. Frequently, there is a nonrandom pattern (bias) in the usage of a particular codon or codons over other synonymous codons.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Synonymous Codon Usage; Codon Bias; Codon Usage Pattern; Codon Preference; Codon Usage Bias.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Codon
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 888 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Codon Usage” (counts retrieved 2026-10-29). 835 of them (94.0%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2020 onward with 835 records.
Reviews account for 34 records (3.8%) and meta-analyses for 0. Randomized controlled trials number 0 (0.0%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 0 |
| 2000-2009 | 0 |
| 2010-2019 | 71 |
| 2020 onward | 835 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 34 | 3.8% |
| Meta-analyses | 0 | 0.0% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 0 | 0.0% |
Method: PubMed query "Codon Usage"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Reading the evidence in genetics and genomics
Genetic findings vary widely in strength. A variant linked to a condition in one study may not replicate in other ancestries, and most common variants have small effects that are meaningful only in aggregate. Studies of rare, high-impact variants can support strong causal claims about a gene, while association studies describe statistical links that need functional and independent replication. Check the sample size, the ancestry of participants, whether results were replicated, and whether a laboratory or clinical outcome was actually measured.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A code within the genetic code: codon usage regulates co-translational protein folding | 2020 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 210 | cc by PMID 32907610 · DOI · PMC7488015 |
| Codon Usage and Splicing Jointly Influence mRNA Localization | 2020 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 87 | cc by PMID 32275854 · DOI · PMC7181179 |
| Variation and selection on codon usage bias across an entire subphylum | 2019 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 83 | cc by PMID 31365533 · DOI · PMC6701816 |
| Evidence for Non-optimal Codon Choice in Highly Transcribed Sex-Biased Genes of Drosophila melanogaster | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 0 | cc by PMID 41974123 · DOI · PMC13148536 |
A code within the genetic code: codon usage regulates co-translational protein folding [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- The genetic code is degenerate, and most amino acids are encoded by two to six synonymous codons.
- Closing excerpt
- Video abstract.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (211 words)
The genetic code is degenerate, and most amino acids are encoded by two to six synonymous codons. Codon usage bias, the preference for certain synonymous codons, is a universal feature of all genomes examined. Synonymous codon mutations were previously thought to be silent; however, a growing body evidence now shows that codon usage regulates protein structure and gene expression through effects on co-translational protein folding, translation efficiency and accuracy, mRNA stability, and transcription. Codon usage regulates the speed of translation elongation, resulting in non-uniform ribosome decoding rates on mRNAs during translation that is adapted to co-translational protein folding process. Biochemical and genetic evidence demonstrate that codon usage plays an important role in regulating protein folding and function in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. Certain protein structural types are more sensitive than others to the effects of codon usage on protein folding, and predicted intrinsically disordered domains are more prone to misfolding caused by codon usage changes than other domain types. Bioinformatic analyses revealed that gene codon usage correlates with different protein structures in diverse organisms, indicating the existence of a codon usage code for co-translational protein folding. This review focuses on recent literature on the role and mechanism of codon usage in regulating translation kinetics and co-translational protein folding. Video abstract.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32907610 · DOI · PMC7488015
Codon Usage and Splicing Jointly Influence mRNA Localization [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- In the human genome, most genes undergo splicing, and patterns of codon usage are splicing dependent: guanine and cytosine (GC) content is the highest within single-exon genes and within first exons of multi-exon genes.
- Closing excerpt
- We propose that splicing promotes the nuclear export of AU-rich mRNAs and that codon- and splicing-dependent effects on expression are under evolutionary pressure in the human genome.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (150 words)
In the human genome, most genes undergo splicing, and patterns of codon usage are splicing dependent: guanine and cytosine (GC) content is the highest within single-exon genes and within first exons of multi-exon genes. However, the effects of codon usage on gene expression are typically characterized in unspliced model genes. Here, we measured the effects of splicing on expression in a panel of synonymous reporter genes that varied in nucleotide composition. We found that high GC content increased protein yield, mRNA yield, cytoplasmic mRNA localization, and translation of unspliced reporters. Splicing did not affect the expression of GC-rich variants. However, splicing promoted the expression of AT-rich variants by increasing their steady-state protein and mRNA levels, in part through promoting cytoplasmic localization of mRNA. We propose that splicing promotes the nuclear export of AU-rich mRNAs and that codon- and splicing-dependent effects on expression are under evolutionary pressure in the human genome.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32275854 · DOI · PMC7181179
Variation and selection on codon usage bias across an entire subphylum [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Variation in synonymous codon usage is abundant across multiple levels of organization: between codons of an amino acid, between genes in a genome, and between genomes of different species.
- Closing excerpt
- These results suggest that the contribution of translational selection and drift to patterns of synonymous codon usage across budding yeasts varies across codons, genes, and genomes; whereas drift is the primary driver of global codon usage across the subphylum, the codon bias of large numbers of genes in the majority of genomes is influenced by translational selection.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (288 words)
Variation in synonymous codon usage is abundant across multiple levels of organization: between codons of an amino acid, between genes in a genome, and between genomes of different species. It is now well understood that variation in synonymous codon usage is influenced by mutational bias coupled with both natural selection for translational efficiency and genetic drift, but how these processes shape patterns of codon usage bias across entire lineages remains unexplored. To address this question, we used a rich genomic data set of 327 species that covers nearly one third of the known biodiversity of the budding yeast subphylum Saccharomycotina. We found that, while genome-wide relative synonymous codon usage (RSCU) for all codons was highly correlated with the GC content of the third codon position (GC3), the usage of codons for the amino acids proline, arginine, and glycine was inconsistent with the neutral expectation where mutational bias coupled with genetic drift drive codon usage. Examination between genes' effective numbers of codons and their GC3 contents in individual genomes revealed that nearly a quarter of genes (381,174/1,683,203; 23%), as well as most genomes (308/327; 94%), significantly deviate from the neutral expectation. Finally, by evaluating the imprint of translational selection on codon usage, measured as the degree to which genes' adaptiveness to the tRNA pool were correlated with selective pressure, we show that translational selection is widespread in budding yeast genomes (264/327; 81%). These results suggest that the contribution of translational selection and drift to patterns of synonymous codon usage across budding yeasts varies across codons, genes, and genomes; whereas drift is the primary driver of global codon usage across the subphylum, the codon bias of large numbers of genes in the majority of genomes is influenced by translational selection.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31365533 · DOI · PMC6701816
Evidence for Non-optimal Codon Choice in Highly Transcribed Sex-Biased Genes of Drosophila melanogaster [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Biases in synonymous codon use occur in many unicellular and multicellular organisms.
- Closing excerpt
- We discuss the putative roles of tRNA gene copy numbers, pleiotropy, and sex-biased expression in the evolution of this level of gene regulation.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (220 words)
Biases in synonymous codon use occur in many unicellular and multicellular organisms. Optimal codons, defined as those most commonly used in highly transcribed genes, are thought to arise from selection for cost-efficient translation, which would favor codons with abundant matching tRNAs. Such presumed selection is described as optimal codon choice. Non-optimal codons, defined as those least commonly used in highly transcribed genes, may in principle also play important roles, but the dynamics of their use remain understudied. Here, we examine non-optimal codon use using sex-biased genes expressed in the gonads of Drosophila melanogaster as a case study. We show that genes with sex-biased expression exhibit a preference for non-optimal codon use, especially testis-biased genes. Further, we show that the use of non-optimal codons is not random. Instead, specific non-optimal codons are favored, again especially in testis-biased genes. Non-optimal codon use is positively linked to elevated disorder of the encoded proteins. Remarkably, all 18 degenerate amino acids were associated with higher disorder when encoded by the identified primary non-optimal codon, than when encoded by its sister optimal codon. We hypothesize that selection may have promoted non-optimal codon choice for a subset of favored non-optimal codons to regulate translation. We discuss the putative roles of tRNA gene copy numbers, pleiotropy, and sex-biased expression in the evolution of this level of gene regulation.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41974123 · DOI · PMC13148536
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Codon usage bias [5]
- Research article Synonymous but Not Silent: The Codon Usage Code for Gene Expression and Protein Folding [6]
- Research article Effects of Synonymous Mutations beyond Codon Bias: The Evidence for Adaptive Synonymous Substitutions from Microbial Evolution Experiments [7]
- Research article Codon Usage Bias: An Endless Tale [8]
- Research article Dysfunctional tRNA reprogramming and codon-biased translation in cancer [9]
- Research article The effects of codon bias and optimality on mRNA and protein regulation [10]
References
- Liu Y. A code within the genetic code: codon usage regulates co-translational protein folding. . 2020. PMID 32907610 · DOI · PMC7488015
- Mordstein C, Savisaar R, Young RS, Bazile J, Talmane L, Luft J, et al.. Codon Usage and Splicing Jointly Influence mRNA Localization. . 2020. PMID 32275854 · DOI · PMC7181179
- LaBella AL, Opulente DA, Steenwyk JL, Hittinger CT, Rokas A. Variation and selection on codon usage bias across an entire subphylum. . 2019. PMID 31365533 · DOI · PMC6701816
- Whittle CA, Extavour CG. Evidence for Non-optimal Codon Choice in Highly Transcribed Sex-Biased Genes of Drosophila melanogaster. . 2026. PMID 41974123 · DOI · PMC13148536
- Parvathy ST, Udayasuriyan V, Bhadana V. Codon usage bias. Mol Biol Rep. 2022. PMID 34822069 · DOI · PMC8613526
- Liu Y, Yang Q, Zhao F. Synonymous but Not Silent: The Codon Usage Code for Gene Expression and Protein Folding. Annu Rev Biochem. 2021. PMID 33441035 · DOI · PMC8284178
- Bailey SF, Alonso Morales LA, Kassen R. Effects of Synonymous Mutations beyond Codon Bias: The Evidence for Adaptive Synonymous Substitutions from Microbial Evolution Experiments. Genome Biol Evol. 2021. PMID 34132772 · DOI · PMC8410137
- Iriarte A, Lamolle G, Musto H. Codon Usage Bias: An Endless Tale. J Mol Evol. 2021. PMID 34383106 · DOI
- Dedon PC, Begley TJ. Dysfunctional tRNA reprogramming and codon-biased translation in cancer. Trends Mol Med. 2022. PMID 36241532 · DOI · PMC10071289
- Hia F, Takeuchi O. The effects of codon bias and optimality on mRNA and protein regulation. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2021. PMID 33128106 · DOI · PMC11072601
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-29.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.