Codon–anticodon interaction and the genetic code evolution

The evolution of the genetic code, with 20 amino acids encoded from the beginning, is analyzed from the viewpoint of codon–anticodon interaction. Imposing a minimum principle for the interaction, in the framework of the so called crystal basis model of the genetic code, we determine the structure of the anticodons in the ancient, archetypal and early genetic codes, that are all reconciled in a unique frame. Most of our results agree with the generally accepted scheme.     

Is there a higher level genetic code that directs evolution?

Summary Because the genetic code is redundant for most amino acids, different codons can be used in a given position without altering the structure of the protein for which the gene codes. This flexibility permits information encoding structural, and therefore functional, properties of RNA and DNA to be transmitted simultaneously by a protein-coding sequence of DNA. Among the other messages that might be transmitted, it is proposed, is one modulating the evolution of the DNA itself.     

“The” genetic code?

The DNA‐based code for protein through messenger and transfer RNA is widely regarded as the code of life. But genomes are littered with other kinds of coding elements as well, and all of them probably came after a supercode for the tRNA system itself.     

β-Turn-driven early evolution: The genetic code and biosynthesis pathways

Summary The physicochemical properties of -turns suggest their biological importance prior to the formation of the genetic code. These properties include ones potentially affecting the preference for eitherl- ord-amino acids. The abundance of certain amino acids in -turns is correlated with their assignment to a small, well-defined part of the genetic code and with their role as metabolic precursors for other amino acids. It is proposed that in the prebiotic environment, -turns became objects of selection that influenced the evolution of the genetic code and biosynthetic pathways for amino acids.     

Is there a physical chemical basis for the present genetic code?

Summary Recent experiments on the interaction of amino acids with homopolyribonucleic acids as measured by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and on the interactions of ribonucleoside 5-monophosphates with immobilized amino acids give relative binding strengths that are not reconcilable with the present genetic code in any simple way.     

Is there a twenty third amino acid in the genetic code?

The universal genetic code includes 20 common amino acids. In addition, selenocysteine (Sec) and pyrrolysine (Pyl), known as the twenty first and twenty second amino acids, are encoded by UGA and UAG, respectively, which are the codons that usually function as stop signals. The discovery of Sec and Pyl suggested that the genetic code could be further expanded by reprogramming stop codons. To search for the putative twenty third amino acid, we employed various tRNA identification programs that scanned 16 archaeal and 130 bacterial genomes for tRNAs with anticodons corresponding to the three stop signals. Our data suggest that the occurrence of additional amino acids that are widely distributed and genetically encoded is unlikely.     

Synthetic alienation of microbial organisms by using genetic code engineering: Why and how?

The main goal of synthetic biology (SB) is the creation of biodiversity applicable for biotechnological needs, while xenobiology (XB) aims to expand the framework of natural chemistries with the non‐natural building blocks in living cells to accomplish artificial biodiversity. Protein and proteome engineering, which overcome limitation of the canonical amino acid repertoire of 20 (+2) prescribed by the genetic code by using non‐canonic amino acids (ncAAs), is one of the main focuses of XB research. Ideally, estranging the genetic code from its current form via systematic introduction of ncAAs should enable the development of bio‐containment mechanisms in synthetic cells potentially endowing them with a “genetic firewall” i.e. orthogonality which prevents genetic information transfer to natural systems. Despite rapid progress over the past two decades, it is not yet possible to completely alienate an organism that would use and maintain different genetic code associations permanently. In order to engineer robust bio‐contained life forms, the chemical logic behind the amino acid repertoire establishment should be considered. Starting from recent proposal of Hartman and Smith about the genetic code establishment in the RNA world, here the authors mapped possible biotechnological invasion points for engineering of bio‐contained synthetic cells equipped with non‐canonical functionalities.     

Forces maintaining organellar genomes: is any as strong as genetic code disparity or hydrophobicity?

It remains controversial why mitochondria and chloroplasts retain the genes encoding a small subset of their constituent proteins, despite the transfer of so many other genes to the nucleus. Two candidate obstacles to gene transfer, suggested long ago, are that the genetic code of some mitochondrial genomes differs from the standard nuclear code, such that a transferred gene would encode an incorrect amino acid sequence, and that the proteins most frequently encoded in mitochondria are generally very hydrophobic, which may impede their import after synthesis in the cytosol. More recently it has been suggested that both these interpretations suffer from serious "false positives" and "false negatives": genes that they predict should be readily transferred but which have never (or seldom) been, and genes whose transfer has occurred often or early, even though this is predicted to be very difficult. Here I consider the full known range of ostensibly problematic such genes, with particular reference to the sequences of events that could have led to their present location. I show that this detailed analysis of these cases reveals that they are in fact wholly consistent with the hypothesis that code disparity and hydrophobicity are much more powerful barriers to functional gene transfer than any other. The popularity of the contrary view has led to the search for other barriers that might retain genes in organelles even more powerfully than code disparity or hydrophobicity; one proposal, concerning the role of proteins in redox processes, has received widespread support. I conclude that this abandonment of the original explanations for the retention of organellar genomes has been premature. Several other, relatively minor, obstacles to gene transfer certainly exist, contributing to the retention of relatively many organellar genes in most lineages compared to animal mtDNA, but there is no evidence for obstacles as severe as code disparity or hydrophobicity. One corollary of this conclusion is that there is currently no reason to suppose that engineering nuclear versions of the remaining mammalian mitochondrial genes, a feat that may have widespread biomedical relevance, should require anything other than sequence alterations obviating code disparity and causing modest reductions in hydrophobicity without loss of enzymatic function.     

Manipulating the genetic code for membrane protein production: What have we learnt so far?

With synthetic gene services, molecular cloning is as easy as ordering a pizza. However choosing the right RNA code for efficient protein production is less straightforward, more akin to deciding on the pizza toppings. The possibility to choose synonymous codons in the gene sequence has ignited a discussion that dates back 50years: Does synonymous codon use matter? Recent studies indicate that replacement of particular codons for synonymous codons can improve expression in homologous or heterologous hosts, however it is not always successful. Furthermore it is increasingly apparent that membrane protein biogenesis can be codon-sensitive. Single synonymous codon substitutions can influence mRNA stability, mRNA structure, translational initiation, translational elongation and even protein folding. Synonymous codon substitutions therefore need to be carefully evaluated when membrane proteins are engineered for higher production levels and further studies are needed to fully understand how to select the codons that are optimal for higher production. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Protein Folding in Membranes.     

On the 28-gon symmetry inherent in the genetic code intertwined with aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases—The Lucas series

Despite considerable efforts it has remained unclear what principle governs the selection of the 20 canonical amino acids in the genetic code. Based on a previous study of the 28-gonal and rotational symmetric arrangement of the 20 amino acids in the genetic code, new analyses of the organization of the genetic code system together with their intrinsic relation to the two classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are reported in this work. A close inspection revealed how the enzymes and the 20 gene-encoded amino acids are intertwined on the polyhedron model. Complementary and cooperative symmetries between class I and class II aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases displayed by a 28-gon organization are discussed, and we found that the two previously suggested evolutionary axes within the genetic code overlap the symmetry axes within the two classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. Moreover, it has been shown that the side-chain carbon-atom numbers (2, 1, 3, 4 and 7) in the overwhelming majority of the amino acids recognized by each of the two classes of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases are determined by a mathematical relationship, the Lucas series. A stepwise co-evolutionary selection logic of the amino acids is manifested by the amino acid side-chain carbon-atom number balance at ‘17’, when grouping the genetic code doublets in the 28-gon organization. The number ‘17’ equals the sum of the initial five numbers in the Lucas series, which are 2, 1, 3, 4 and 7.     

Theβ-sheets of proteins,the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids,and the origin of the genetic code

Two forces are generally hypothesised as being responsible for conditioning the origin of the organization of the genetic code: the physicochemical properties of amino acids and their biosynthetic relationships (relationships between precursor and product amino acids). If we assume that the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids were fundamental in defining the genetic code, then it is reasonable to expect that the distribution of physicochemical properties among the amino acids in precursor-product relationships cannot be random but must, rather, be affected by some selective constraints imposed by the structure of primitive proteins. Analysis shows that measurements representing the size of amino acids, e.g. bulkiness, are specifically associated to the pairs of amino acids in precursor-product relationships. However, the size of amino acids cannot have been selected per se but, rather, because it reflects the-sheets of proteins which are, therefore, identified as the main adaptive theme promoting the origin of genetic code organization. Whereas there are no traces of the-helix in the genetic code table.The above considerations make it necessary to re-examine the relationship linking the hydrophilicity of the dinucleoside monophosphates of anticodons and the polarity and bulkiness of amino acids. It can be concluded that this relationship seems to be meaningful only between the hydrophilicity of anticodons and the polarity of amino acids. The latter relationship is supposed to have been operative on hairpin structures, ancestors of the tRNA molecule. Moreover, it is on these very structures that the biosynthetic links between precursor and product amino acids might have been achieved, and the interaction between the hydrophilicity of anticodons and the polarity of amino acids might have had a role in the concession of codons (anticodons) from precursors to products.     

Hydrogen bonding between cytosine and peptides of threonine or serine: is it relevant to the origin of the genetic code?

13C, 15N, and 1H nuclear magnetic resonance measurements indicate that chloroform-soluble threonine-containing tripeptide derivatives, such as t-Boc-Thr-Gly-Gly-OBz, form three strong hydrogen bonds to the cytosine moiety of 2',3'-O-isopropylidene-5'-O-t-butyldimethylsilylcytidine. The C = O and NH of the central peptide residue plus the OH of the threonine side chain appear to form bonds to the N(4')H2, N(3), and C(2) = O, respectively, of the pyrimidine. An association constant calculated from the cytidine 15N(4') nuclear magnetic resonance response to added peptide is four times larger than the corresponding cytosine-guanine constant. It is suggested that cytosine-peptide bonding was part of the primitive genetic coding mechanism early in evolution and accounts for the origin of the cytosine-centered codons for the hydroxy amino acids, serine and threonine, in the present code.     

Does the 'non-coding' strand code?

The hypothesis that DNA strands complementary to the coding strand contain in phase coding sequences has been investigated. Statistical analysis of the 50 genes of bacteriophage T7 shows no significant correlation between patterns of codon usage on the coding and non-coding strands. In Bacillus and yeast genes the correlation observed is not different from that expected with random synonymous codon usage, while a high correlation seen in 52 E. coli genes can be explained in terms of an excess of RNY codons. A deficiency of UUA, CUA and UCA codons (complementary to termination) seems to be restricted to the E. coli genes, and may be due to low abundance of the relevant cognate tRNA species. Thus the analysis shows that the non-coding strand has the properties expected of a sequence complementary to a coding strand, with no indications that it encodes, or may have encoded, proteins.