The role of crossover operator in evolutionary-based approach to the problem of genetic code optimization

One of theories explaining the present structure of canonical genetic code assumes that it was optimized to minimize harmful effects of amino acid replacements resulting from nucleotide substitutions and translational errors. A way to testify this concept is to find the optimal code under given criteria and compare it with the canonical genetic code. Unfortunately, the huge number of possible alternatives makes it impossible to find the optimal code using exhaustive methods in sensible time. Therefore, heuristic methods should be applied to search the space of possible solutions. Evolutionary algorithms (EA) seem to be ones of such promising approaches. This class of methods is founded both on mutation and crossover operators, which are responsible for creating and maintaining the diversity of candidate solutions. These operators possess dissimilar characteristics and consequently play different roles in the process of finding the best solutions under given criteria. Therefore, the effective searching for the potential solutions can be improved by applying both of them, especially when these operators are devised specifically for a given problem. To study this subject, we analyze the effectiveness of algorithms for various combinations of mutation and crossover probabilities under three models of the genetic code assuming different restrictions on its structure. To achieve that, we adapt the position based crossover operator for the most restricted model and develop a new type of crossover operator for the more general models. The applied fitness function describes costs of amino acid replacement regarding their polarity. Our results indicate that the usage of crossover operators can significantly improve the quality of the solutions. Moreover, the simulations with the crossover operator optimize the fitness function in the smaller number of generations than simulations without this operator. The optimal genetic codes without restrictions on their structure minimize the costs about 2.7 times better than the canonical genetic code. Interestingly, the optimal codes are dominated by amino acids characterized by polarity close to its average value for all amino acids.

[1]  B. K. Davis Evolution of the genetic code. , 1999, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[2]  S. Freeland,et al.  The Case for an Error Minimizing Standard Genetic Code , 2003, Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere.

[3]  P. Dunnill,et al.  Triplet Nucleotide–Amino-acid Pairing; a Stereo-chemical Basis for the Division between Protein and Non-protein Amino-acids , 1966, Nature.

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

[5]  C. Woese,et al.  Evolution of the genetic code , 2004, The Science of Nature.

[6]  Kihong Park,et al.  On the effectiveness of genetic search in combinatorial optimization , 1995, SAC '95.

[7]  Serge Massar,et al.  Optimality of the genetic code with respect to protein stability and amino-acid frequencies , 2001, Genome Biology.

[8]  William M. Spears,et al.  Crossover or Mutation? , 1992, FOGA.

[9]  Zbigniew Kokosinski Effects of Versatile Crossover and Mutation Operators on Evolutionary Search in Partition and Permutation Problems , 2005, Intelligent Information Systems.

[10]  The lack of foundation in the mechanism on which are based the physico-chemical theories for the origin of the genetic code is counterposed to the credible and natural mechanism suggested by the coevolution theory. , 2016, Journal of theoretical biology.

[11]  Krzysztof Trojanowski,et al.  Intelligent Information Processing and Web Mining , 2008 .

[12]  Massimo Di Giulio,et al.  The origin of the genetic code: theories and their relationships, a review. , 2005, Bio Systems.

[13]  E. Koonin,et al.  Evolution of the genetic code: partial optimization of a random code for robustness to translation error in a rugged fitness landscape , 2007, Biology Direct.

[14]  F. J. Reithel,et al.  Effects of Thiols on Escherichia coli β-Galactosidases , 1966, Nature.

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

[16]  Massimo Di Giulio,et al.  The extension reached by the minimization of the polarity distances during the evolution of the genetic code , 1989, Journal of Molecular Evolution.

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

[18]  José Santos Reyes,et al.  Simulated evolution applied to study the genetic code optimality using a model of codon reassignments , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[19]  Massimo Di Giulio,et al.  The origin of the genetic code: theories and their relationships, a review. , 2005 .

[20]  Lawrence. Davis,et al.  Handbook Of Genetic Algorithms , 1990 .

[21]  Massimo Di Giulio,et al.  The lack of foundation in the mechanism on which are based the physico-chemical theories for the origin of the genetic code is counterposed to the credible and natural mechanism suggested by the coevolution theory , 2016 .

[22]  José Santos,et al.  Study of the genetic code adaptability by means of a genetic algorithm. , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

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

[24]  S. R. Pelc,et al.  Stereochemical Relationship Between Coding Triplets and Amino-Acids , 1966, Nature.

[25]  G. Syswerda,et al.  Schedule Optimization Using Genetic Algorithms , 1991 .

[26]  Pedro Larrañaga,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for the Travelling Salesman Problem: A Review of Representations and Operators , 1999, Artificial Intelligence Review.

[27]  F. Taylor,et al.  The code within the codons. , 1989, Bio Systems.

[28]  M. D. Giulio On the relationships between the genetic code coevolution hypothesis and the physicochemical hypothesis. , 1991 .

[29]  L F Landweber,et al.  Measuring adaptation within the genetic code. , 2000, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[30]  Przemyslaw Biecek,et al.  Optimisation of Asymmetric Mutational Pressure and Selection Pressure Around the Universal Genetic Code , 2008, ICCS.

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

[32]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[33]  F. H. C. CRICK,et al.  Origin of the Genetic Code , 1967, Nature.

[34]  J. Wong,et al.  Coevolution theory of the genetic code at age thirty. , 2005, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[35]  R. Knight,et al.  Origins of the genetic code: the escaped triplet theory. , 2005, Annual review of biochemistry.

[36]  J. W. Atmar,et al.  Comparing genetic operators with gaussian mutations in simulated evolutionary processes using linear systems , 1990, Biological Cybernetics.

[37]  P. B. Milanov,et al.  On the optimality of the genetic code , 1986, Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere.

[38]  ORIGINS OF THE GENETIC CODE: The Escaped , 2005 .

[39]  F. Crick Origin of the Genetic Code , 1967, Nature.