If all you want to do is exactly what you have specified, on the basis of a 2013 paper on the human tRNAs identified in the 1000 genes project, the format would seem to be:
Notice that the anticodon is written in the 5ʹ→3ʹ direction, as in the paper, and that Met is capitalized, as recommended in ...
Nonambiguity refers to the fact that codon X will always code for the same amino acid.
Degeneracy refers to the fact that an amino acid can be coded for by many codons.
I rephrase the question to get to the gist of things:
Why do certain mutations cause no difference for protein synthesis, while others make a big difference?
Certain mutations can ...
Translation in the mitochondria of mammals differs markedly from that
in the cytoplasm. Although it has more similarity to translation in
prokaryotes, it also shows significant changes from the latter. A smaller
repertoire of tRNAs is able to translate a ‘simplified’ genetic code
through structural alterations and base ...
The difference in the nature of codon–anticodon ambiguity seen between bacterial initiation and elongation lies not only in the position of the codon at which it occurs (5′ v 3′, respectively), but in the partial or absolute nature of the interactions (only some AUG and GUG etc. codons initiate and insert fMet, whereas all AUU and AUC codons will ...
The answer is simply due to the random walk of the amino acids. Over small volumes, this process is incredibly quick and is also responsible for nucleotide delivery to polymerases as well proteins searching for their substrates, in fact, only a few enzymes/proteins are limited by the rates of random walk motion. I'm sure there are lots of papers which ...
There is an extensive literature on synonymous codons and their usage in different organisms. I shall assume that the question concerns relationship between strength of codon–anticodon interaction and the efficiency (speed in this case) of translation.
It is not disputed (I am aware of few experiments on this) that the strength of codon–anticodon ...