On the efficiency of the genetic code after frameshift mutations

Statistical and biochemical studies of the standard genetic code (SGC) have found evidence that the impact of mistranslations is minimized in a way that erroneous codes are either synonymous or code for an amino acid with similar polarity as the originally coded amino acid. It could be quantified that the SGC is optimized to protect this specific chemical property as good as possible. In recent work, it has been speculated that the multilevel optimization of the genetic code stands in the wider context of overlapping codes. This work tries to follow the systematic approach on mistranslations and to extend those analyses to the general effect of frameshift mutations on the polarity conservation of amino acids. We generated one million random codes and compared their average polarity change over all triplets and the whole set of possible frameshift mutations. While the natural code—just as for the point mutations—appears to be competitively robust against frameshift mutations as well, we found that both optimizations appear to be independent of each other. For both, better codes can be found, but it becomes significantly more difficult to find candidates that optimize all of these features—just like the SGC does. We conclude that the SGC is not only very efficient in minimizing the consequences of mistranslations, but rather optimized in amino acid polarity conservation for all three effects of code alteration, namely translational errors, point and frameshift mutations. In other words, our result demonstrates that the SGC appears to be much more than just “one in a million”.

[1]  L. Hurst,et al.  The Genetic Code Is One in a Million , 1998, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[2]  P. Tompa,et al.  Dual coding in alternative reading frames correlates with intrinsic protein disorder , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  N. Goldenfeld,et al.  Collective evolution and the genetic code. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  T. Grundström,et al.  Overlapping genes. , 1983, Annual review of genetics.

[5]  Laurence D. Hurst,et al.  A quantitative measure of error minimization in the genetic code , 1991, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[6]  Eran Segal,et al.  Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. , 2010, Genome research.

[7]  Hervé Seligmann,et al.  The ambush hypothesis: hidden stop codons prevent off-frame gene reading. , 2004, DNA and cell biology.

[8]  I. Weinstein,et al.  LACK OF FIDELITY IN THE TRANSLATION OF SYNTHETIC POLYRIBONUCLEOTIDES. , 1964, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  J. Wong A co-evolution theory of the genetic code. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  John Orban,et al.  The design and characterization of two proteins with 88% sequence identity but different structure and function , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  G. Islan,et al.  Design and characterization , 2016 .

[12]  Marshall W. Nirenberg,et al.  The dependence of cell-free protein synthesis in E. coli upon naturally occurring or synthetic polyribonucleotides , 1961, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  C R Woese,et al.  The molecular basis for the genetic code. , 1966, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  Wouter M. Koolen,et al.  Some Mathematical Refinements Concerning Error Minimization in the Genetic Code , 2011, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics.

[15]  Claus O. Wilke,et al.  Mistranslation-Induced Protein Misfolding as a Dominant Constraint on Coding-Sequence Evolution , 2008, Cell.

[16]  L. Hurst,et al.  Early fixation of an optimal genetic code. , 2000, Molecular biology and evolution.

[17]  Mohammed Alawad,et al.  Synonymous codon bias and functional constraint on GC3-related DNA backbone dynamics in the prokaryotic nucleoid , 2014, Nucleic acids research.

[18]  G. Dueck New optimization heuristics , 1993 .

[19]  C. Anfinsen Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. , 1973, Science.

[20]  L F Landweber,et al.  Selection, history and chemistry: the three faces of the genetic code. , 1999, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[21]  Nick Goldman,et al.  Further results on error minimization in the genetic code , 1993, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

[22]  P. Higgs A four-column theory for the origin of the genetic code: tracing the evolutionary pathways that gave rise to an optimized code , 2009, Biology Direct.

[23]  Laurence D. Hurst,et al.  A Quantitative Measure of Error Minimization in the Genetic Code , 1999, Journal of Molecular Evolution.