Institute of Food Sciences, CNR, Via Roma 64, 83100 Avellino, Italy.
Early Evolution of Life Laboratory, Institute of Biosciences and Bioresources, CNR, Via P. Castellino, 111, 80131 Naples, Italy.
J Theor Biol. 2018 Dec 14;459:45-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.09.021. Epub 2018 Sep 20.
We have considered a model for the origin of the genetic code that takes into account the two factors that have determined its evolution: the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids and their physicochemical properties. The model evaluates the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids considering of constraints based on the biosynthetic families of amino acids. These biosynthetic constraints are able to define six subsets of codes - that we have analyzed - in which the evolution of the genetic code might have passed. At the same time, the physicochemical properties of amino acids have been described by means of two scales of polarity, considered solely or combined with the molecular volume of amino acids. Furthermore, we have considered three cost functions. The results maintain the hypothesis that the genetic code organization is not optimal even in these subsets containing a very limited number of elements. That is to say, the genetic code is not a local or absolute minimum. For instance, only a few amino acid exchanges would have rendered the genetic code more optimized or even they would have transformed it into a completely optimized code. This would imply that the evolution of the genetic code, not considering these possibilities, has evolved through different pathways from the one that was oriented to a high optimization. Moreover, the combination of polarity and the molecular volume of amino acids results to have been more significant than when the only polarity is considered, in conditioning the evolution of the genetic code contrary to that reported in the literature. However, this is not such to produce an organization of the genetic code optimized if referred to these two properties. Nevertheless, these two properties being crucial in defining the structure of proteins, they would have affected the origin of the genetic code by means of the selective pressure directed to improve the ancestral enzymatic catalysis. As a whole these observations contradict the predictions of the physicochemical theories of the origin of the genetic code because the non-optimization of the genetic code organization - even in subsets of codes with a very low element number - would deny the absolute importance of the physicochemical properties of amino acids in its structuration, which, on the contrary, is expected from these theories. Conversely, these same observations would be in perfect agreement with the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code because they would explain both the not fundamental role of the physicochemical properties in organizing the genetic code and the importance of these properties in the evolution of coded catalysis - that is to say, of the genetic code - both predicted by this last theory.
我们考虑了一种遗传密码起源的模型,该模型考虑了决定其进化的两个因素:氨基酸的生物合成关系及其物理化学性质。该模型通过基于氨基酸生物合成家族的约束来评估氨基酸之间的生物合成关系。这些生物合成约束能够定义六个我们已经分析过的代码子集,遗传密码的进化可能已经通过了这些子集。同时,氨基酸的物理化学性质通过两个极性尺度来描述,这些尺度仅被考虑或与氨基酸的分子体积结合使用。此外,我们还考虑了三个成本函数。结果保持了这样的假设,即即使在这些包含非常有限数量元素的子集中,遗传密码的组织也不是最优的。也就是说,遗传密码不是局部或绝对的最小值。例如,只需进行少数氨基酸交换就可以使遗传密码更加优化,甚至可以将其转变为完全优化的密码。这意味着,不考虑这些可能性的情况下,遗传密码的进化已经通过了不同于高度优化的进化途径。此外,氨基酸的极性和分子体积的组合结果比仅考虑极性时更具重要性,这与文献中报道的遗传密码进化的条件相反。然而,这并不能使遗传密码的组织达到优化,如果参照这两个特性的话。尽管如此,由于这两个特性在定义蛋白质结构方面至关重要,它们可能通过定向提高原始酶催化作用的选择压力来影响遗传密码的起源。总的来说,这些观察结果与遗传密码起源的物理化学理论的预测相矛盾,因为遗传密码组织的非最优化——即使在具有非常低元素数量的代码子集中——也否认了氨基酸物理化学性质在其结构中的绝对重要性,而这些理论则预期了这一点。相反,这些相同的观察结果将与遗传密码起源的共同进化理论完全一致,因为它们将解释物理化学性质在组织遗传密码方面的非基础性作用,以及这些性质在编码催化作用进化中的重要性——也就是说,遗传密码——这两者都被该理论所预测。