| Literature DB >> 29138304 |
Gur Pines1,2, James D Winkler3,2, Assaf Pines, Ryan T Gill3,2.
Abstract
The standard genetic code is robust to mutations during transcription and translation. Point mutations are likely to be synonymous or to preserve the chemical properties of the original amino acid. Saturation mutagenesis experiments suggest that in some cases the best-performing mutant requires replacement of more than a single nucleotide within a codon. These replacements are essentially inaccessible to common error-based laboratory engineering techniques that alter a single nucleotide per mutation event, due to the extreme rarity of adjacent mutations. In this theoretical study, we suggest a radical reordering of the genetic code that maximizes the mutagenic potential of single nucleotide replacements. We explore several possible genetic codes that allow a greater degree of accessibility to the mutational landscape and may result in a hyperevolvable organism that could serve as an ideal platform for directed evolution experiments. We then conclude by evaluating the challenges of constructing such recoded organisms and their potential applications within the field of synthetic biology.IMPORTANCE The conservative nature of the genetic code prevents bioengineers from efficiently accessing the full mutational landscape of a gene via common error-prone methods. Here, we present two computational approaches to generate alternative genetic codes with increased accessibility. These new codes allow mutational transitions to a larger pool of amino acids and with a greater extent of chemical differences, based on a single nucleotide replacement within the codon, thus increasing evolvability both at the single-gene and at the genome levels. Given the widespread use of these techniques for strain and protein improvement, along with more fundamental evolutionary biology questions, the use of recoded organisms that maximize evolvability should significantly improve the efficiency of directed evolution, library generation, and fitness maximization.Entities:
Keywords: evolution; genetic code; genome synthesis; saturation mutagenesis
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29138304 PMCID: PMC5686537 DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01654-17
Source DB: PubMed Journal: MBio Impact factor: 7.867
FIG 1 The properties of the standard genetic code. (A) The standard genetic code. Colors indicate the amino acid chemical classes (depicted on the right side of the chart). Stop codons are white and are denoted by X. Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of SNR-accessible unique amino acids for each codon. (B) The codon SNR accessibility plot of the standard code. All 64 codons are grouped according to their corresponding amino acids, which in turn are clustered by their chemical classes (colors are as for panel A). Edges connecting two codons indicate that these two codons are within an SNR distance. Edge colors correspond to whether the amino acid change is within the same chemical class (red) or between classes (blue). Edges connecting to stop codons are shaded gray. (C) Analysis of a previously reported database describing resistance mutations under a wide array of conditions (adapted from Winkler et al. 2016 [44]). The x and y axes correspond to the wild-type (WT) and mutated amino acids in resistance-conferring genes, respectively. The z axis represents normalized counts of the mutations. Colors indicate the minimal number of nucleotide replacements needed for the transition from WT amino acid to the mutated one. Note that the vast majority of mutations may be explained by a single nucleotide replacement within a codon. (D) A stacked view histogram of scanning saturation mutagenesis data from Garst et al. (32), showing the mutational fitness landscape following the incubation of a folA library with trimethoprim. Colors are as described for panel C. Note that the four most enriched mutants require two nucleotide replacements within the codon (enrichment values and mutation identity are indicated).
FIG 2 Accessibility plots of the genetic codes presented in this study. Plots are organized as described for Fig. 1B. (A) The optimal code (OPT). (B) The optimal code with the imposed native codon restriction (OPR-NR). (C) Change-minimizing code utilizing a linear penalty for changes (CMC). (D) Change-minimizing code utilizing a power of 2 penalty for changes (CMC2). (E) Genetic code derived from a recursive approach of amino acid reassignment (REC). (F) the resulting genetic code of reassigning the seven free codons, as described by Ostrov et al. (50).
FIG 3 Comparisons of the genetic codes presented in this study. (A) A 3-dimensional bubble chart with the axes corresponding to the three parameters that were selected for optimization. Bubble size corresponds to the number of codon-amino acid reassignments required for each genetic code, which is also indicated in parentheses. (B) Genome evolvability of the presented codes, computed based on the accessibility of the recoded collection of the E. coli essential genes.