Literature DB >> 10658836

Evolution of the genetic code: the nonsense, antisense, and antinonsense codes make no sense.

G Houen1.   

Abstract

According to the molecular recognition theory, the complementarity of the sense and nonsense DNA strands is reflected in a complementarity of polypeptides and the corresponding nonsense polypeptides. A comparison of the sense and nonsense code matrices, and of the antisense and antinonsense code matrices, either by visual inspection or by comparing the corresponding hydrophobicity matrices (e.g. by simply adding them together), revealed no complementarity of these pairs of matrices in terms of possible attractive physical forces. Instead, it was evident that the codes divide the amino acids into two major groups: hydrophilic and hydrophobic, a division which is directly correlated with the folding property of proteins. A simple primordial genetic code distinguishing between these two types of amino acids would have been capable of generating three-dimensionally folded peptides, which could stabilize coding RNAs by forming ribonucleoprotein complexes. This evolutionary scheme is reflected in the present organisation of information processing and storage in essentially all organisms. RNAs are processed and translated into proteins by ribonucleoproteins, while other steps in information retrieval and processing, such as DNA replication, transcription, protein folding and posttranslational processing, are catalyzed by proteins. This shows that the evolution of DNA as an information storage medium was a secondary event, unrelated to the evolution of the genetic code. From the primordial hydrophilic/hydrophobic (f.ex. Leu/Arg) code, evolution proceeded by introduction of a catalytic amino acid (Ser). The further evolution of the code has mainly served to increase the number of functional hydrophilic amino acids, since there has not been a great advantage in increasing the number of structural, hydrophobic amino acids. At some stage during the evolution of the genetic code, double-stranded DNA was introduced as a maximally safe genetic copy of RNA. This required the action of highly specific enzymes, and was therefore preceded by the refinement of the genetic code. As a conclusion of this evolutionary scheme, it can be inferred that, in general only the sense strand encodes proteins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10658836     DOI: 10.1016/s0303-2647(99)00056-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biosystems        ISSN: 0303-2647            Impact factor:   1.973


  3 in total

1.  Coding rules for amino acids in the genetic code: the genetic code is a minimal code of mutational deterioration.

Authors:  Liaofu Luo; Xiaoqin Li
Journal:  Orig Life Evol Biosph       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 1.950

2.  Are proposed early genetic codes capable of encoding viable proteins?

Authors:  Annamária Franciska Angyán; Csaba Ortutay; Zoltán Gáspári
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 2.395

3.  On the structural regularity in nucleobases and amino acids and relationship to the origin and evolution of the genetic code.

Authors:  Chi Ming Yang
Journal:  Orig Life Evol Biosph       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 1.950

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.