Literature DB >> 10552035

The genetic code: what is it good for? An analysis of the effects of selection pressures on genetic codes.

O P Judson1, D Haydon.   

Abstract

How did the "universal" genetic code arise? Several hypotheses have been put forward, and the code has been analyzed extensively by authors looking for clues to selection pressures that might have acted during its evolution. But this approach has been ineffective. Although an impressive number of properties has been attributed to the universal code, it has been impossible to determine whether selection on any of these properties was important in the code's evolution or whether the observed properties arose as a consequence of selection on some other characteristic. Therefore we turned the question around and asked, what would a genetic code look like if it had evolved in response to various different selection pressures? To address this question, we constructed a genetic algorithm. We found first that selecting on a particular measure yields codes that are similar to each other. Second, we found that the universal code is far from minimized with respect to the effects of mutations (or translation errors) on the amino acid compositions of proteins. Finally, we found that the codes that most closely resembled real codes were those generated by selecting on aspects of the code's structure, not those generated by selecting to minimize the effects of amino acid substitutions on proteins. This suggests that the universal genetic code has been selected for a particular structure-a structure that confers an important flexibility on the evolution of genes and proteins-and that the particular assignments of amino acids to codons are secondary.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10552035     DOI: 10.1007/pl00006575

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Evol        ISSN: 0022-2844            Impact factor:   2.395


  15 in total

1.  Testing a biosynthetic theory of the genetic code: fact or artifact?

Authors:  T A Ronneberg; L F Landweber; S J Freeland
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2000-12-05       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  The case for an error minimizing standard genetic code.

Authors:  Stephen J Freeland; Tao Wu; Nick Keulmann
Journal:  Orig Life Evol Biosph       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.950

3.  No accident: genetic codes freeze in error-correcting patterns of the standard genetic code.

Authors:  David H Ardell; Guy Sella
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2002-11-29       Impact factor: 6.237

4.  Mitochondrial genetic codes evolve to match amino acid requirements of proteins.

Authors:  Jonathan Swire; Olivia P Judson; Austin Burt
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.395

5.  Codon usage bias and mutation constraints reduce the level of error minimization of the genetic code.

Authors:  Marco Archetti
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.395

6.  Certain non-standard coding tables appear to be more robust to error than the standard genetic code.

Authors:  Mehmet Levent Kurnaz; Tugce Bilgin; Isil Aksan Kurnaz
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 7.  Optimization models and the structure of the genetic code.

Authors:  J L Jestin; A Kempf
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 2.395

8.  The Standard Genetic Code Facilitates Exploration of the Space of Functional Nucleotide Sequences.

Authors:  Shubham Tripathi; Michael W Deem
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 2.395

9.  An alternative look at code evolution: using non-canonical codes to evaluate adaptive and historic models for the origin of the genetic code.

Authors:  David W Morgens; Andre R O Cavalcanti
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 10.  Was Wright right? The canonical genetic code is an empirical example of an adaptive peak in nature; deviant genetic codes evolved using adaptive bridges.

Authors:  David M Seaborg
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2010-08-15       Impact factor: 2.395

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.