The evolutionary stages of the complexity of biological catalysts mark and clarify the phases of the origin of the genetic code: A model for the origin of the reading frame with codons from proto-mRNAs with different frames

Selection in molecular evolution

Evolution requires selection. Molecular/chemical/preDarwinian evolution is no exception. One molecule must be selected over another for molecular evolution to occur and advance. Evolution, however, has no goal. The laws of physics have no utilitarian desire, intent or proficiency. Laws and constraints are blind to "usefulness." How then were potential multi-step processes anticipated, valued and pursued by inanimate nature? Can orchestration of formal systems be physico-chemically spontaneous? The purely physico-dynamic self-ordering of Chaos Theory and irreversible non-equilibrium thermodynamic "engines of disequilibria conversion" achieve neither orchestration nor formal organization. Natural selection is a passive and after-the-fact-of-life selection. Darwinian selection reduces to the differential survival and reproduction of the fittest already-living organisms. In the case of abiogenesis, selection had to be 1) Active, 2) Pre-Function, and 3) Efficacious. Selection had to take place at the molecular level prior to the existence of non-trivial functional processes. It could not have been passive or secondary. What naturalistic mechanisms might have been at play?

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.

Evolution of the RNA world: From signals to codes

The accumulated material in evolutionary biology, greatly enhanced by the achievements of modern synthetic biology, allows us to envision certain key hypothetical stages of prebiotic (chemical) evolution. This is often understood as the further evolution in the RNA World towards the RNA-protein World. It is a path towards the emergence of translation and the genetic code (I), signaling pathways with signaling molecules (II), and the appearance of RNA-based components of future gene regulatory networks (III). We believe that these evolutionary paths can be constructively viewed from the perspective of the concept of biological codes (Barbieri, 2003). Crucial evolutionary events in these directions would involve the emergence of RNA-based adaptors. Such adaptors connect two families of functionally and chemically distinct molecules into one functional entity. The emergence of primitive translation processes is undoubtedly the major milestone in the evolutionary path towards modern life. The key aspect here is the appearance of adaptors between amino acids and their cognate triplet codons. The initial steps are believed to involve the emergence of proto-transfer RNAs capable of self-aminoacylation. The second significant evolutionary breakthrough is the development of biochemical regulatory networks based on signaling molecules of the RNA World (ribonucleotides and their derivatives), as well as receptors and effectors (riboswitches) for these messengers. Some authors refer to this as the "lost language of the RNA World." The third evolutionary step is the emergence of signal sequences for ribozymes on the molecules of their RNA targets. This level of regulation in the RNA World is comparable to the gene regulatory networks of modern organisms. We believe that the signal sequences on target molecules have been rediscovered and developed by evolution into the gene regulatory networks of modern cells. In conclusion, the immense diversity of modern biological codes, in some of its key characteristics, can be traced back to the achievements of prebiotic evolution.

Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of code biology

This article highlights the potential contribution of biological codes to the course and dynamics of evolution. The concept of organic codes, developed by Marcello Barbieri, has fundamentally changed our view of how living systems function. The notion that molecular interactions built on adaptors that arbitrarily link molecules from different "worlds" in a conventional, i.e., rule-based way, departs significantly from the law-based constraints imposed on livening things by physical and chemical mechanisms. In other words, living and non-living things behave like rules and laws, respectively, but this important distinction is rarely considered in current evolutionary theory. The many known codes allow quantification of codes that relate to a cell, or comparisons between different biological systems and may pave the way to a quantitative and empirical research agenda in code biology. A starting point for such an endeavour is the introduction of a simple dichotomous classification of structural and regulatory codes. This classification can be used as a tool to analyse and quantify key organising principles of the living world, such as modularity, hierarchy, and robustness, based on organic codes. The implications for evolutionary research are related to the unique dynamics of codes, or ´Eigendynamics´ (self-momentum) and how they determine the behaviour of biological systems from within, whereas physical constraints are imposed mainly from without. A speculation on the drivers of macroevolution in light of codes is followed by the conclusion that a meaningful and comprehensive understanding of evolution depends including codes into the equation of life.

RNP-world: The ultimate essence of life is a ribonucleoprotein process

The fundamental essence of life is based on process of interaction between nucleic acids and proteins. In a prebiotic world, amino acids, peptides, ions, and other metabolites acted in protobiotic routes at the same time on which RNAs performed catalysis and self-replication. Nevertheless, it was only when nucleic acids and peptides started to interact together in an organized process that life emerged. First, the ignition was sparked with the formation of a Peptidyl Transferase Center (PTC), possibly by concatenation of proto-tRNAs. This molecule that would become the catalytic site of ribosomes started a process of self-organization that gave origin to a protoorganism named FUCA, a ribonucleic ribosomal-like apparatus capable to polymerize amino acids. In that sense, we review hypotheses about the origin and early evolution of the genetic code. Next, populations of open biological systems named progenotes were capable of accumulating and exchanging genetic material, producing the first genomes. Progenotes then evolved in two paths: some presented their own ribosomes and others used available ribosomes in the medium to translate their encoded information. At some point, two different types of organisms emerged from populations of progenotes: the ribosome-encoding organisms (cells) and the capsid-encoding organisms (viruses).