Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/10742043
Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
4
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
2000-6-15
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
The evolutionary forces that produced the canonical genetic code before the last universal ancestor remain obscure. One hypothesis is that the arrangement of amino acid/codon assignments results from selection to minimize the effects of errors (e.g., mistranslation and mutation) on resulting proteins. If amino acid similarity is measured as polarity, the canonical code does indeed outperform most theoretical alternatives. However, this finding does not hold for other amino acid properties, ignores plausible restrictions on possible code structure, and does not address the naturally occurring nonstandard genetic codes. Finally, other analyses have shown that significantly better code structures are possible. Here, we show that if theoretically possible code structures are limited to reflect plausible biological constraints, and amino acid similarity is quantified using empirical data of substitution frequencies, the canonical code is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space. This result is robust to variation in the methods and assumptions of the analysis. Although significantly better codes do exist under some assumptions, they are extremely rare and thus consistent with reports of an adaptive code: previous analyses which suggest otherwise derive from a misleading metric. However, all extant, naturally occurring, secondarily derived, nonstandard genetic codes do appear less adaptive. The arrangement of amino acid assignments to the codons of the standard genetic code appears to be a direct product of natural selection for a system that minimizes the phenotypic impact of genetic error. Potential criticisms of previous analyses appear to be without substance. That known variants of the standard genetic code appear less adaptive suggests that different evolutionary factors predominated before and after fixation of the canonical code. While the evidence for an adaptive code is clear, the process by which the code achieved this optimization requires further attention.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:chemical | |
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Apr
|
| pubmed:issn |
0737-4038
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
17
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
511-8
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2006-11-15
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
2000
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Early fixation of an optimal genetic code.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Ecology, Princeton University, University of Bath, Bath, England.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
|