Genetic code

Features

Reading frame

A reading frame is defined by the initial triplet of nucleotides from which translation starts. It sets the frame for a run of successive, non-overlapping codons, which is known as an "open reading frame" (ORF). For example, the string 5'-AAATGAACG-3' (see figure), if read from the first position, contains the codons AAA, TGA, and ACG; if read from the second position, it contains the codons AAT and GAA; and if read from the third position, it contains the codons ATG and AAC. Every sequence can, thus, be read in its 5' → 3' direction in three reading frames, each producing a possibly distinct amino acid sequence: in the given example, Lys (K)-Trp (W)-Thr (T), Asn (N)-Glu (E), or Met (M)-Asn (N), respectively (when translating with the vertebrate mitochondrial code). When DNA is double-stranded, six possible reading frames are defined, three in the forward orientation on one strand and three reverse on the opposite strand. Protein-coding frames are defined by a start codon, usually the first AUG codon in the RNA, (ATG in DNA) sequence.

In eukaryotes, open reading frames in exons are often interrupted by introns.

Start and stop codons

Translation starts with a chain-initiation codon or start codon. The start codon alone is not sufficient to begin the process. Nearby sequences such as the Shine-Dalgarno sequence in E. coli and initiation factors are also required to start translation. The most common start codon is AUG, which is read as methionine or as formylmethionine (in bacteria, mitochondria, and plastids). Alternative start codons depending on the organism include "GUG" or "UUG"; these codons normally represent valine and leucine, respectively, but as start codons they are translated as methionine or formylmethionine.

The three stop codons have names: UAG is amber, UGA is opal (sometimes also called umber), and UAA is ochre. Stop codons are also called "termination" or "nonsense" codons. They signal release of the nascent polypeptide from the ribosome because no cognate tRNA has anticodons complementary to these stop signals, allowing a release factor to bind to the ribosome instead.

Effect of mutations

During the process of DNA replication, errors occasionally occur in the polymerization of the second strand. These errors, mutations, can affect an organism's phenotype, especially if they occur within the protein coding sequence of a gene. Error rates are typically 1 error in every 10–100 million bases—due to the "proofreading" ability of DNA polymerases.

Missense mutations and nonsense mutations are examples of point mutations that can cause genetic diseases such as sickle-cell disease and thalassemia respectively. Clinically important missense mutations generally change the properties of the coded amino acid residue among basic, acidic, polar or non-polar states, whereas nonsense mutations result in a stop codon.

Mutations that disrupt the reading frame sequence by indels (insertions or deletions) of a non-multiple of 3 nucleotide bases are known as frameshift mutations. These mutations usually result in a completely different translation from the original, and likely cause a stop codon to be read, which truncates the protein. These mutations may impair the protein's function and are thus rare in in vivo protein-coding sequences. One reason inheritance of frameshift mutations is rare is that, if the protein being translated is essential for growth under the selective pressures the organism faces, absence of a functional protein may cause death before the organism becomes viable. Frameshift mutations may result in severe genetic diseases such as Tay–Sachs disease.

Although most mutations that change protein sequences are harmful or neutral, some mutations have benefits. These mutations may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection. Viruses that use RNA as their genetic material have rapid mutation rates, which can be an advantage, since these viruses thereby evolve rapidly, and thus evade the immune system defensive responses. In large populations of asexually reproducing organisms, for example, E. coli, multiple beneficial mutations may co-occur. This phenomenon is called clonal interference and causes competition among the mutations.

Degeneracy

Degeneracy is the redundancy of the genetic code. This term was given by Bernfield and Nirenberg. The genetic code has redundancy but no ambiguity (see the codon tables below for the full correlation). For example, although codons GAA and GAG both specify glutamic acid (redundancy), neither specifies another amino acid (no ambiguity). The codons encoding one amino acid may differ in any of their three positions. For example, the amino acid leucine is specified by YUR or CUN (UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, or CUG) codons (difference in the first or third position indicated using IUPAC notation), while the amino acid serine is specified by UCN or AGY (UCA, UCG, UCC, UCU, AGU, or AGC) codons (difference in the first, second, or third position). A practical consequence of redundancy is that errors in the third position of the triplet codon cause only a silent mutation or an error that would not affect the protein because the hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity is maintained by equivalent substitution of amino acids; for example, a codon of NUN (where N = any nucleotide) tends to code for hydrophobic amino acids. NCN yields amino acid residues that are small in size and moderate in hydropathicity; NAN encodes average size hydrophilic residues. The genetic code is so well-structured for hydropathicity that a mathematical analysis (Singular Value Decomposition) of 12 variables (4 nucleotides x 3 positions) yields a remarkable correlation (C = 0.95) for predicting the hydropathicity of the encoded amino acid directly from the triplet nucleotide sequence, without translation. Note in the table, below, eight amino acids are not affected at all by mutations at the third position of the codon, whereas in the figure above, a mutation at the second position is likely to cause a radical change in the physicochemical properties of the encoded amino acid. Nevertheless, changes in the first position of the codons are more important than changes in the second position on a global scale. The reason may be that charge reversal (from a positive to a negative charge or vice versa) can only occur upon mutations in the first position of certain codons, but not upon changes in the second position of any codon. Such charge reversal may have dramatic consequences for the structure or function of a protein. This aspect may have been largely underestimated by previous studies.

Codon usage bias

The frequency of codons, also known as codon usage bias, can vary from species to species with functional implications for the control of translation. The codon varies by organism; for example, most common proline codon in E. coli is CCG, whereas in humans this is the least used proline codon.

Alternative genetic codes

Non-standard amino acids

In some proteins, non-standard amino acids are substituted for standard stop codons, depending on associated signal sequences in the messenger RNA. For example, UGA can code for selenocysteine and UAG can code for pyrrolysine. Selenocysteine came to be seen as the 21st amino acid, and pyrrolysine as the 22nd. Both selenocysteine and pyrrolysine may be present in the same organism. Although the genetic code is normally fixed in an organism, the achaeal prokaryote Acetohalobium arabaticum can expand its genetic code from 20 to 21 amino acids (by including pyrrolysine) under different conditions of growth.

Variations

There was originally a simple and widely accepted argument that the genetic code should be universal: namely, that any variation in the genetic code would be lethal to the organism (although Crick had stated that viruses were an exception). This is known as the "frozen accident" argument for the universality of the genetic code. However, in his seminal paper on the origins of the genetic code in 1968, Francis Crick still stated that the universality of the genetic code in all organisms was an unproven assumption, and was probably not true in some instances. He predicted that "The code is universal (the same in all organisms) or nearly so". The first variation was discovered in 1979, by researchers studying human mitochondrial genes. Many slight variants were discovered thereafter, including various alternative mitochondrial codes. These minor variants for example involve translation of the codon UGA as tryptophan in Mycoplasma species, and translation of CUG as a serine rather than leucine in yeasts of the "CTG clade" (such as Candida albicans). Because viruses must use the same genetic code as their hosts, modifications to the standard genetic code could interfere with viral protein synthesis or functioning. However, viruses such as totiviruses have adapted to the host's genetic code modification. In bacteria and archaea, GUG and UUG are common start codons. In rare cases, certain proteins may use alternative start codons. Surprisingly, variations in the interpretation of the genetic code exist also in human nuclear-encoded genes: In 2016, researchers studying the translation of malate dehydrogenase found that in about 4% of the mRNAs encoding this enzyme the stop codon is naturally used to encode the amino acids tryptophan and arginine. This type of recoding is induced by a high-readthrough stop codon context and it is referred to as functional translational readthrough.

Despite these differences, all known naturally occurring codes are very similar. The coding mechanism is the same for all organisms: three-base codons, tRNA, ribosomes, single direction reading and translating single codons into single amino acids. The most extreme variations occur in certain ciliates where the meaning of stop codons depends on their position within mRNA. When close to the 3' end they act as terminators while in internal positions they either code for amino acids as in Condylostoma magnum or trigger ribosomal frameshifting as in Euplotes.

The origins and variation of the genetic code, including the mechanisms behind the evolvability of the genetic code, have been widely studied, and some studies have been done experimentally evolving the genetic code of some organisms.

Inference

Variant genetic codes used by an organism can be inferred by identifying highly conserved genes encoded in that genome, and comparing its codon usage to the amino acids in homologous proteins of other organisms. For example, the program FACIL infers a genetic code by searching which amino acids in homologous protein domains are most often aligned to every codon. The resulting amino acid (or stop codon) probabilities for each codon are displayed in a genetic code logo.

As of January 2022, the most complete survey of genetic codes is done by Shulgina and Eddy, who screened 250,000 prokaryotic genomes using their Codetta tool. This tool uses a similar approach to FACIL with a larger Pfam database. Despite the NCBI already providing 27 translation tables, the authors were able to find new 5 genetic code variations (corroborated by tRNA mutations) and correct several misattributions. Codetta was later used to analyze genetic code change in ciliates.

Origin

The genetic code is a key part of the history of life. Under the RNA world hypothesis, self-replicating RNA molecules preceded significant use of proteins. Under the nucleopeptide world hypothesis, significant use of peptides preceded the genetic code and was concurrent with early life's sophisticated use of RNA. Transfer RNA molecules appear to have evolved before modern aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. It is possible that synthetases replaced an earlier system of ribozymes (RNA enzymes), or that amino acids were recognized by unique pockets in the tertiary structure of proto-tRNAs. It is not known why the genetic code only uses L-amino acids and not D-amino acids.

Any evolutionary model for the code's origin must account for its robustness of encoded proteins to errors during DNA replication and during translation. Many single nucleotide errors are synonymous, and those that are not tend to cause the substitution of a biochemically similar amino acid. Even holding the structure of the code the same such that clusters of codons encode the same amino acid, which amino acids are encoded by which sets of codons is "one in a million" with respect to robustness. Biochemically similar amino acids tend to share the same middle nucleotide, while synonymous changes generally happen at the third nucleotide.

Amino acids that share the same biosynthetic pathway tend to have the same first base in their codons. This could be an evolutionary relic of an early, simpler genetic code with fewer amino acids that later evolved to code a larger set of amino acids. It could also reflect steric and chemical properties that had another effect on the codon during its evolution. Amino acids with similar physical properties also tend to have similar codons, reducing the problems caused by point mutations and mistranslations.

Three main hypotheses address the origin of the genetic code. Many models belong to one of them or to a hybrid:

• Random freeze: the genetic code was randomly created. For example, early tRNA-like ribozymes may have had different affinities for amino acids, with codons emerging from another part of the ribozyme that exhibited random variability. Once enough peptides were coded for, any major random change in the genetic code would have been lethal; hence it became "frozen".
• Stereochemical affinity: the genetic code is a result of a high affinity between each amino acid and its codon or anti-codon; the latter option implies that pre-tRNA molecules matched their corresponding amino acids by this affinity. Later during evolution, this matching was gradually replaced with matching by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases.
• Optimality: the genetic code continued to evolve after its initial creation, so that the current code maximizes some fitness function, usually some kind of error minimization.

Hypotheses have addressed a variety of scenarios:

• Chemical principles govern specific RNA interaction with amino acids. Experiments with aptamers showed that some amino acids have a selective chemical affinity for their codons. Experiments showed that of 8 amino acids tested, 6 show some RNA triplet-amino acid association.
• Biosynthetic expansion. The genetic code grew from a simpler earlier code through a process of "biosynthetic expansion". Primordial life "discovered" new amino acids (for example, as by-products of metabolism) and later incorporated some of these into the machinery of genetic coding. Although much circumstantial evidence has been found to suggest that fewer amino acid types were used in the past, precise and detailed hypotheses about which amino acids entered the code in what order are controversial. However, several studies have suggested that Gly, Ala, Asp, Val, Ser, Pro, Glu, Leu, Thr may belong to a group of early-addition amino acids, whereas Cys, Met, Tyr, Trp, His, Phe may belong to a group of later-addition amino acids. An alternative analysis of amino acid usage in the Last Universal Common Ancestor concluded that the amino acids came in the following order: Val, Gly, Ile, Met, Ala, Thr, His, Glu, Cys, Pro, Lys, Ser, Asp, Leu, Asn, Arg, Phe, Tyr, Gln, Trp. It was pointed out that the late appearance of sulfur-containing cysteine and methionine was concluded in part from their absence of the sulfur-free Miller–Urey experiment, that early life is believed to have used S-adenosyl methionine, and that while histidine is hard to make abiotically, it is straightforward to synthesize in an organism that already has sophisticated RNA and hence purine synthesis.
• Natural selection has led to codon assignments of the genetic code that minimize the effects of mutations. A recent hypothesis suggests that the triplet code was derived from codes that used longer than triplet codons (such as quadruplet codons). Longer than triplet decoding would increase codon redundancy and would be more error resistant. This feature could allow accurate decoding absent complex translational machinery such as the ribosome, such as before cells began making ribosomes.
• Information channels: Information-theoretic approaches model the process of translating the genetic code into corresponding amino acids as an error-prone information channel. The inherent noise (that is, the error) in the channel poses the organism with a fundamental question: how can a genetic code be constructed to withstand noise while accurately and efficiently translating information? These "rate-distortion" models suggest that the genetic code originated as a result of the interplay of the three conflicting evolutionary forces: the needs for diverse amino acids, for error-tolerance and for minimal resource cost. The code emerges at a transition when the mapping of codons to amino acids becomes nonrandom. The code's emergence is governed by the topology defined by the probable errors and is related to the map coloring problem.
• Game theory: Models based on signaling games combine elements of game theory, natural selection and information channels. Such models have been used to suggest that the first polypeptides were likely short and had non-enzymatic function. Game theoretic models suggested that the organization of RNA strings into cells may have been necessary to prevent "deceptive" use of the genetic code, i.e. preventing the ancient equivalent of viruses from overwhelming the RNA world.
• Stop codons: Codons for translational stops are also an interesting aspect to the problem of the origin of the genetic code. As an example for addressing stop codon evolution, it has been suggested that the stop codons are such that they are most likely to terminate translation early in the case of a frame shift error. In contrast, some stereochemical molecular models explain the origin of stop codons as "unassignable".