Literature DB >> 11965436

The impact of message mutation on the fitness of a genetic code.

Guy Sella1, David H Ardell.   

Abstract

The Standard Genetic Code is organized such that similar codons encode similar amino acids. One explanation suggested that the Standard Code is the result of natural selection to reduce the fitness "load" that derives from the mutation and mistranslation of protein-coding genes. We review the arguments against the mutational load-minimizing hypothesis and argue that they need to be reassessed. We review recent analyses of the organization of the Standard Code and conclude that under cautious interpretation they support the mutational load-minimizing hypothesis. We then present a deterministic asexual model with which we study the mode of selection for load minimization. In this model, individual fitness is determined by a protein phenotype resulting from the translation of a mutable set of protein-coding genes. We show that an equilibrium fitness may be associated with a population with the same genetic code and that genetic codes that assign similar codons to similar amino acids have a higher fitness. We also show that the number of mutant codons in each individual at equilibrium, which determines the strength of selection for load minimization, reflects a long-term evolutionary balance between mutations in messages and selection on proteins, rather than the number of mutations that occur in a single generation, as has been assumed by previous authors. We thereby establish that selection for mutational load minimization acts at the level of an individual in a single generation. We conclude with comments on the shortcomings and advantages of load minimization over other hypotheses for the origin of the Standard Code.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11965436     DOI: 10.1007/s00239-001-0060-7

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


  20 in total

1.  On the evolution of primitive genetic codes.

Authors:  Günter Weberndorfer; Ivo L Hofacker; Peter F Stadler
Journal:  Orig Life Evol Biosph       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 1.950

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.  A unified model of codon reassignment in alternative genetic codes.

Authors:  Supratim Sengupta; Paul G Higgs
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-03-21       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  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

6.  Collective evolution and the genetic code.

Authors:  Kalin Vetsigian; Carl Woese; Nigel Goldenfeld
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-07-03       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 7.  The coevolution of genes and genetic codes: Crick's frozen accident revisited.

Authors:  Guy Sella; David H Ardell
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 2.395

8.  Genome rhetoric and the emergence of compositional bias.

Authors:  Kalin Vetsigian; Nigel Goldenfeld
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-12-30       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  A neutral origin for error minimization in the genetic code.

Authors:  Steven E Massey
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 2.395

Review 10.  Pathways of Genetic Code Evolution in Ancient and Modern Organisms.

Authors:  Supratim Sengupta; Paul G Higgs
Journal:  J Mol Evol       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 2.395

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.