Evolution of the Genetic Code: The Ribosome-Oriented Model

Theories of the origin of the genetic code: Strong corroboration for the coevolution theory

I analyzed all the theories and models of the origin of the genetic code, and over the years, I have considered the main suggestions that could explain this origin. The conclusion of this analysis is that the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code is the theory that best captures the majority of observations concerning the organization of the genetic code. In other words, the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids would have heavily influenced the origin of the organization of the genetic code, as supported by the coevolution theory. Instead, the presence in the genetic code of physicochemical properties of amino acids, which have also been linked to the physicochemical properties of anticodons or codons or bases by stereochemical and physicochemical theories, would simply be the result of natural selection. More explicitly, I maintain that these correlations between codons, anticodons or bases and amino acids are in fact the result not of a real correlation between amino acids and codons, for example, but are only the effect of the intervention of natural selection. Specifically, in the genetic code table we expect, for example, that the most similar codons - that is, those that differ by only one base - will have more similar physicochemical properties. Therefore, the 64 codons of the genetic code table ordered in a certain way would also represent an ordering of some of their physicochemical properties. Now, a study aimed at clarifying which physicochemical property of amino acids has influenced the allocation of amino acids in the genetic code has established that the partition energy of amino acids has played a role decisive in this. Indeed, under some conditions, the genetic code was found to be approximately 98% optimized on its columns. In this same work, it was shown that this was most likely the result of the action of natural selection. If natural selection had truly allocated the amino acids in the genetic code in such a way that similar amino acids also have similar codons - this, not through a mechanism of physicochemical interaction between, for example, codons and amino acids - then it might turn out that even different physicochemical properties of codons (or anticodons or bases) show some correlation with the physicochemical properties of amino acids, simply because the partition energy of amino acids is correlated with other physicochemical properties of amino acids. It is very likely that this would inevitably lead to a correlation between codons (or anticodons or bases) and amino acids. In other words, since the codons (anticodons or bases) are ordered in the genetic code, that is to say, some of their physicochemical properties should also be ordered by a similar order, and given that the amino acids would also appear to have been ordered in the genetic code by selection natural, then it should inevitably turn out that there is a correlation between, for example, the hydrophobicity of anticodons and that of amino acids. Instead, the intervention of natural selection in organizing the genetic code would appear to be highly compatible with the main mechanism of structuring the genetic code as supported by the coevolution theory. This would make the coevolution theory the only plausible explanation for the origin of the genetic code.

The time of appearance of the genetic code

I support the hypothesis that the origin of the genetic code occurred simultaneously with the evolution of cellularity. That is to say, I favour the hypothesis that the origin of the genetic code is a very, very late event in the history of life on Earth. I corroborate this hypothesis with observations favouring the progenote's stage for the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), for the ancestor of bacteria and that of archaea. Indeed, these progenotic stages would imply that - at that time - the origin of the genetic code was still ongoing simply because this origin would fall within the very definition of progenote. Therefore, if the evolution of cellularity had truly been coeval with the origin of the genetic code - at least in its terminal part - then this would favour theories such as the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code because this theory would postulate that this origin must have occurred in extremely complex protocellular conditions and not concerning stereochemical or physicochemical interactions having to do with other stages of the origin of life. In this sense, the coevolution theory would be corroborated while the stereochemical and physicochemical theories would be damaged. Therefore, the origin of the genetic code would be linked to the origin of the cell and not to the origin of life as sometimes asserted. Therefore, I will discuss the late hypothesis of the origin of the genetic code in the context of the theories proposed to explain this origin and more generally of its implications for the early evolution of life.

Model of Genetic Code Structure Evolution under Various Types of Codon Reading

The standard genetic code (SGC) is a set of rules according to which 64 codons are assigned to 20 canonical amino acids and stop coding signal. As a consequence, the SGC is redundant because there is a greater number of codons than the number of encoded labels. This redundancy implies the existence of codons that encode the same genetic information. The size and organization of such synonymous codon blocks are important characteristics of the SGC structure whose evolution is still unclear. Therefore, we studied possible evolutionary mechanisms of the codon block structure. We conducted computer simulations assuming that coding systems at early stages of the SGC evolution were sets of ambiguous codon assignments with high entropy. We included three types of reading systems characterized by different inaccuracy and pattern of codon recognition. In contrast to the previous study, we allowed for evolution of the reading systems and their competition. The simulations performed under minimization of translational errors and reduction of coding ambiguity produced the coding system resistant to these errors. The reading system similar to that present in the SGC dominated the others very quickly. The survived system was also characterized by low entropy and possessed properties similar to that in the SGC. Our simulation show that the unambiguous SGC could emerged from a code with a lower level of ambiguity and the number of tRNAs increased during the evolution.

Models of genetic code structure evolution with variable number of coded labels

It is assumed that at the early stage of cell evolution its translation machinery was characterized by high noise, i.e. ambiguous assignment of codons to amino acids in the genetic code, which initially encoded only few amino acids. Next, during its evolution new amino acids were added to this code. Taking into account this facts, we investigated theoretical models of genetic code's structure, which evolved from a set of ambiguous codons assignments into a coding system with a low level of uncertainty. We considered three types of translational inaccuracies assuming a different number of fixed codon positions. We applied a modified version of evolutionary algorithm for finding the genetic codes that the most effectively reduced the initial uncertainty in the assignment of codons to encoded labels, i.e. amino acids and a stop translation signal. We examined codes with the number of labels from four to 22. Our results indicated that the quality of genetic code structure is strongly dependent on the number of encoded labels as well as the type of translational mechanism. The more strict assignments of codon to the labels was preferred by the codes encoding more number of labels. The results showed that a smaller degeneracy of codes evolved from a more tolerant coding with the stepwise addition of coded amino acids to the genetic code. The distribution of codon groups in the standard genetic code corresponds well to the translation model assuming two fixed codon positions, whereas the six-codon groups can be relics form previous stages of evolution when the code characterized by a greater uncertainty.

LUCA as well as the ancestors of archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes were progenotes: Inference from the distribution and diversity of the reading mechanism of the AUA and AUG codons in the domains of life

Here I use the rationale assuming that if of a certain trait that exerts its function in some aspect of the genetic code or, more generally, in protein synthesis, it is possible to identify the evolutionary stage of its origin then it would imply that this evolutionary moment would be characterized by a high translational noise because this trait would originate for the first time during that evolutionary stage. That is to say, if this trait had a non-marginal role in the realization of the genetic code, or in protein synthesis, then the origin of this trait would imply that, more generally, it was the genetic code itself that was still originating. But if the genetic code were still originating - at that precise evolutionary stage - then this would imply that there was a high translational noise which in turn would imply that it was in the presence of a protocell, i.e. a progenote that was by definition characterized by high translational noise. I apply this rationale to the mechanism of modification of the base 34 of the anticodon of an isoleucine tRNA that leads to the reading of AUA and AUG codons in archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes. The phylogenetic distribution of this mechanism in these phyletic lineages indicates that this mechanism originated only after the evolutionary stage of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), namely, during the formation of cellular domains, i.e., at the stage of ancestors of these main phyletic lineages. Furthermore, given that this mechanism of modification of the base 34 of the anticodon of the isoleucine tRNA would result to emerge at a stage of the origin of the genetic code - despite in its terminal phases - then all this would imply that the ancestors of bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes were progenotes. If so, all the more so, the LUCA would also be a progenote since it preceded these ancestors temporally. A consequence of all this reasoning might be that since these three ancestors were of the progenotes that were different from each other, if at least one of them had evolved into at least two real and different cells - basically different from each other - then the number of cellular domains would not be three but it would be greater than three.

The phylogenetic distribution of the glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase and Glu-tRNAGln amidotransferase in the fundamental lineages would imply that the ancestor of archaea, that of eukaryotes and LUCA were progenotes

The function of the glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase and Glu-tRNA^Gln amidotransferase might be related to the origin of the genetic code because, for example, glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase catalyses the fundamental reaction that makes the genetic code. If the evolutionary stage of the origin of these two enzymes could be unambiguously identified, then the genetic code should still have been originating at that particular evolutionary stage because the fundamental reaction that makes the code itself was still evidently evolving. This would result in that particular evolutionary moment being attributed to the evolutionary stage of the progenote because it would have a relationship between the genotype and the phenotype not yet fully realized because the genetic code was precisely still originating. I then analyzed the distribution of the glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase and Glu-tRNA^Gln aminodotrasferase in the main phyletic lineages. Since in some cases the origin of these two enzymes can be related to the evolutionary stages of ancestors of archaea and eukaryotes, this would indicate these ancestors as progenotes because at that evolutionary moment the genetic code was evidently still evolving, thus realizing the definition of progenote. The conclusion that the ancestor of archaea and that of eukaryotes were progenotes would imply that even the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) was a progenote because it appeared, on the tree of life, temporally before these ancestors.

p-Adic hierarchical properties of the genetic code

In this article, we consider p-adic modeling of the standard genetic code and the vertebrate mitochondrial one. To this end, we use 5-adic and 2-adic distance as a mathematical tool to describe closeness (nearness, similarity) between codons as elements of a bioinformation space. Codons which are simultaneously at the smallest 5-adic and 2-adic distance code the same (or similar) amino acid or stop signal. The set of codons is presented as an ultrametric tree as well as a fractal and p-adic network. It is shown that genetic code can be treated as sequential translation between genetic languages. This p-adic approach gives possibility to be applied to sequences of nucleotides of an arbitrary finite length. We present an overview of published and some new results on various p-adic properties of the genetic code.

DNA as information

This article reviews contributions to this theme issue covering the topic 'DNA as information' in relation to the structure of DNA, the measure of its information content, the role and meaning of information in biology and the origin of genetic coding as a transition from uninformed to meaningful computational processes in physical systems.