The phylogeny of tRNAs seems to confirm the predictions of the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code

Theories of the origin of the genetic code: Strong corroboration for the coevolution theory

I analyzed all the theories and models of the origin of the genetic code, and over the years, I have considered the main suggestions that could explain this origin. The conclusion of this analysis is that the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code is the theory that best captures the majority of observations concerning the organization of the genetic code. In other words, the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids would have heavily influenced the origin of the organization of the genetic code, as supported by the coevolution theory. Instead, the presence in the genetic code of physicochemical properties of amino acids, which have also been linked to the physicochemical properties of anticodons or codons or bases by stereochemical and physicochemical theories, would simply be the result of natural selection. More explicitly, I maintain that these correlations between codons, anticodons or bases and amino acids are in fact the result not of a real correlation between amino acids and codons, for example, but are only the effect of the intervention of natural selection. Specifically, in the genetic code table we expect, for example, that the most similar codons - that is, those that differ by only one base - will have more similar physicochemical properties. Therefore, the 64 codons of the genetic code table ordered in a certain way would also represent an ordering of some of their physicochemical properties. Now, a study aimed at clarifying which physicochemical property of amino acids has influenced the allocation of amino acids in the genetic code has established that the partition energy of amino acids has played a role decisive in this. Indeed, under some conditions, the genetic code was found to be approximately 98% optimized on its columns. In this same work, it was shown that this was most likely the result of the action of natural selection. If natural selection had truly allocated the amino acids in the genetic code in such a way that similar amino acids also have similar codons - this, not through a mechanism of physicochemical interaction between, for example, codons and amino acids - then it might turn out that even different physicochemical properties of codons (or anticodons or bases) show some correlation with the physicochemical properties of amino acids, simply because the partition energy of amino acids is correlated with other physicochemical properties of amino acids. It is very likely that this would inevitably lead to a correlation between codons (or anticodons or bases) and amino acids. In other words, since the codons (anticodons or bases) are ordered in the genetic code, that is to say, some of their physicochemical properties should also be ordered by a similar order, and given that the amino acids would also appear to have been ordered in the genetic code by selection natural, then it should inevitably turn out that there is a correlation between, for example, the hydrophobicity of anticodons and that of amino acids. Instead, the intervention of natural selection in organizing the genetic code would appear to be highly compatible with the main mechanism of structuring the genetic code as supported by the coevolution theory. This would make the coevolution theory the only plausible explanation for the origin of the genetic code.

The time of appearance of the genetic code

I support the hypothesis that the origin of the genetic code occurred simultaneously with the evolution of cellularity. That is to say, I favour the hypothesis that the origin of the genetic code is a very, very late event in the history of life on Earth. I corroborate this hypothesis with observations favouring the progenote's stage for the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), for the ancestor of bacteria and that of archaea. Indeed, these progenotic stages would imply that - at that time - the origin of the genetic code was still ongoing simply because this origin would fall within the very definition of progenote. Therefore, if the evolution of cellularity had truly been coeval with the origin of the genetic code - at least in its terminal part - then this would favour theories such as the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code because this theory would postulate that this origin must have occurred in extremely complex protocellular conditions and not concerning stereochemical or physicochemical interactions having to do with other stages of the origin of life. In this sense, the coevolution theory would be corroborated while the stereochemical and physicochemical theories would be damaged. Therefore, the origin of the genetic code would be linked to the origin of the cell and not to the origin of life as sometimes asserted. Therefore, I will discuss the late hypothesis of the origin of the genetic code in the context of the theories proposed to explain this origin and more generally of its implications for the early evolution of life.

An Autotrophic Origin for the Coded Amino Acids is Concordant with the Coevolution Theory of the Genetic Code

The coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code maintains that the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids co-evolved with the genetic code organization. In other words, the metabolism of amino acids co-evolved with the organization of the genetic code because the biosynthetic pathways of amino acids occurred on tRNA-like molecules. Thus, a heterotrophic origin of amino acids-also only of those involved in the early phase of the structuring of the genetic code-would seem to contradict the main postulate of the coevolution theory. As a matter of fact, this origin not being linked to the metabolism of amino acids in any way-being taken from a physical setting-would seem to remove the possibility that this metabolism had instead heavily contributed to the structuring of the genetic code. Therefore, I have analyzed the structure of the genetic code and mechanisms that brought to its structuring for understanding if the coevolution theory is compatible with autotrophic or heterotrophic conditions. One of the arguments was that an autotrophic origin of amino acids would have the advantage to be able to directly link their metabolism to the structure of the genetic code if-as hypothesized by the coevolution theory-the biosyntheses of amino acids occurred on tRNA-like molecules. Simultaneously, a heterotrophic origin would not have been able to link the metabolism of amino acids to the structure of the genetic code for the absence of a precise determinism of allocation of amino acids, that is to say of a clear mechanism-linked to tRNA-like molecules, for example-that would have determined the specific pattern observed in the genetic code of the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids. The conclusion is that an autotrophic origin of coded amino acids would seem to be the condition under which the genetic code originated.

Non-canonical roles of tRNAs and tRNA mimics in bacterial cell biology

Transfer RNAs (tRNAs) are the macromolecules that transfer activated amino acids from aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases to the ribosome, where they are used for the mRNA guided synthesis of proteins. Transfer RNAs are ancient molecules, perhaps even predating the existence of the translation machinery. Albeit old, these molecules are tremendously conserved, a characteristic that is well illustrated by the fact that some bacterial tRNAs are efficient and specific substrates of eukaryotic aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases and ribosomes. Considering their ancient origin and high structural conservation, it is not surprising that tRNAs have been hijacked during evolution for functions outside of translation. These roles beyond translation include synthetic, regulatory and information functions within the cell. Here we provide an overview of the non-canonical roles of tRNAs and their mimics in bacteria, and discuss some of the common themes that arise when comparing these different functions.

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

I analyze the mechanism on which are based the majority of theories that put to the center of the origin of the genetic code the physico-chemical properties of amino acids. As this mechanism is based on excessive mutational steps, I conclude that it could not have been operative or if operative it would not have allowed a full realization of predictions of these theories, because this mechanism contained, evidently, a high indeterminacy. I make that disapproving the four-column theory of the origin of the genetic code (Higgs, 2009) and reply to the criticism that was directed towards the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code. In this context, I suggest a new hypothesis that clarifies the mechanism by which the domains of codons of the precursor amino acids would have evolved, as predicted by the coevolution theory. This mechanism would have used particular elongation factors that would have constrained the evolution of all amino acids belonging to a given biosynthetic family to the progenitor pre-tRNA, that for first recognized, the first codons that evolved in a certain codon domain of a determined precursor amino acid. This happened because the elongation factors recognized two characteristics of the progenitor pre-tRNAs of precursor amino acids, which prevented the elongation factors from recognizing the pre-tRNAs belonging to biosynthetic families of different precursor amino acids. Finally, I analyze by means of Fisher's exact test, the distribution, within the genetic code, of the biosynthetic classes of amino acids and the ones of polarity values of amino acids. This analysis would seem to support the biosynthetic classes of amino acids over the ones of polarity values, as the main factor that led to the structuring of the genetic code, with the physico-chemical properties of amino acids playing only a subsidiary role in this evolution. As a whole, the full analysis brings to the conclusion that the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code would be a theory highly corroborated.

Stable tRNA-based phylogenies using only 76 nucleotides

tRNAs are among the most ancient, highly conserved sequences on earth, but are often thought to be poor phylogenetic markers because they are short, often subject to horizontal gene transfer, and easily change specificity. Here we use an algorithm now commonly used in microbial ecology, UniFrac, to cluster 175 genomes spanning all three domains of life based on the phylogenetic relationships among their complete tRNA pools. We find that the overall pattern of similarities and differences in the tRNA pools recaptures universal phylogeny to a remarkable extent, and that the resulting tree is similar to the distribution of bootstrapped rRNA trees from the same genomes. In contrast, the trees derived from tRNAs of identical specificity or of individual isoacceptors generally produced trees of lower quality. However, some tRNA isoacceptors were very good predictors of the overall pattern of organismal evolution. These results show that UniFrac can extract meaningful biological patterns from even phylogenies with high level of statistical inaccuracy and horizontal gene transfer, and that, overall, the pattern of tRNA evolution tracks universal phylogeny and provides a background against which we can test hypotheses about the evolution of individual isoacceptors.

Evidence from glycine transfer RNA of a frozen accident at the dawn of the genetic code

BACKGROUND

Transfer RNA (tRNA) is the means by which the cell translates DNA sequence into protein according to the rules of the genetic code. A credible proposition is that tRNA was formed from the duplication of an RNA hairpin half the length of the contemporary tRNA molecule, with the point at which the hairpins were joined marked by the canonical intron insertion position found today within tRNA genes. If these hairpins possessed a 3'-CCA terminus with different combinations of stem nucleotides (the ancestral operational RNA code), specific aminoacylation and perhaps participation in some form of noncoded protein synthesis might have occurred. However, the identity of the first tRNA and the initial steps in the origin of the genetic code remain elusive.

RESULTS

Here we show evidence that glycine tRNA was the first tRNA, as revealed by a vestigial imprint in the anticodon loop sequences of contemporary descendents. This provides a plausible mechanism for the missing first step in the origin of the genetic code. In 448 of 466 glycine tRNA gene sequences from bacteria, archaea and eukaryote cytoplasm analyzed, CCA occurs immediately upstream of the canonical intron insertion position, suggesting the first anticodon (NCC for glycine) has been captured from the 3'-terminal CCA of one of the interacting hairpins as a result of an ancestral ligation.

CONCLUSION

That this imprint (including the second and third nucleotides of the glycine tRNA anticodon) has been retained through billions of years of evolution suggests Crick's 'frozen accident' hypothesis has validity for at least this very first step at the dawn of the genetic code.

REVIEWERS

This article was reviewed by Dr Eugene V. Koonin, Dr Rob Knight and Dr David H Ardell.

An extension of the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code

BACKGROUND

The coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code suggests that the genetic code is an imprint of the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids. However, this theory does not seem to attribute a role to the biosynthetic relationships between the earliest amino acids that evolved along the pathways of energetic metabolism. As a result, the coevolution theory is unable to clearly define the very earliest phases of genetic code origin. In order to remove this difficulty, I here suggest an extension of the coevolution theory that attributes a crucial role to the first amino acids that evolved along these biosynthetic pathways and to their biosynthetic relationships, even when defined by the non-amino acid molecules that are their precursors.

RESULTS

It is re-observed that the first amino acids to evolve along these biosynthetic pathways are predominantly those codified by codons of the type GNN, and this observation is found to be statistically significant. Furthermore, the close biosynthetic relationships between the sibling amino acids Ala-Ser, Ser-Gly, Asp-Glu, and Ala-Val are not random in the genetic code table and reinforce the hypothesis that the biosynthetic relationships between these six amino acids played a crucial role in defining the very earliest phases of genetic code origin.

CONCLUSION

All this leads to the hypothesis that there existed a code, GNS, reflecting the biosynthetic relationships between these six amino acids which, as it defines the very earliest phases of genetic code origin, removes the main difficulty of the coevolution theory. Furthermore, it is here discussed how this code might have naturally led to the code codifying only for the domains of the codons of precursor amino acids, as predicted by the coevolution theory. Finally, the hypothesis here suggested also removes other problems of the coevolution theory, such as the existence for certain pairs of amino acids with an unclear biosynthetic relationship between the precursor and product amino acids and the collocation of Ala between the amino acids Val and Leu belonging to the pyruvate biosynthetic family, which the coevolution theory considered as belonging to different biosyntheses.

REVIEWERS

This article was reviewed by Rob Knight, Paul Higgs (nominated by Laura Landweber), and Eugene Koonin.

Evolutionary patterns in the sequence and structure of transfer RNA: a window into early translation and the genetic code

Transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules play vital roles during protein synthesis. Their acceptor arms are aminoacylated with specific amino acid residues while their anticodons delimit codon specificity. The history of these two functions has been generally linked in evolutionary studies of the genetic code. However, these functions could have been differentially recruited as evolutionary signatures were left embedded in tRNA molecules. Here we built phylogenies derived from the sequence and structure of tRNA, we forced taxa into monophyletic groups using constraint analyses, tested competing evolutionary hypotheses, and generated timelines of amino acid charging and codon discovery. Charging of Sec, Tyr, Ser and Leu appeared ancient, while specificities related to Asn, Met, and Arg were derived. The timelines also uncovered an early role of the second and then first codon bases, identified codons for Ala and Pro as the most ancient, and revealed important evolutionary take-overs related to the loss of the long variable arm in tRNA. The lack of correlation between ancestries of amino acid charging and encoding indicated that the separate discoveries of these functions reflected independent histories of recruitment. These histories were probably curbed by co-options and important take-overs during early diversification of the living world.

Transfer RNA and the origins of diversified life

The evolution of the transfer RNA (tRNA) molecule is controversial but embeds the history of protein biosynthesis, the genetic code, and the origins of diversified life. A new phylogenetic method based on RNA structure that we developed provides new lines of evidence to support the genome tag hypothesis and confirms that the 'top half' of tRNA is more ancient than the 'bottom half'. Timelines of amino acid charging function generated from constraint analyses showed that selenocysteine, tyrosine, serine, and leucine specificities were ancient, while those related to asparagine, methionine, and arginine were more recent. The timelines also uncovered an early role of the second and then first codon bases, identified codons for alanine and proline as the most ancient, and revealed important evolutionary take-overs related to the loss of the long variable arm of tRNA. Furthermore, organismal timelines showed Archaea was the oldest superkingdom, followed by viruses, and superkingdoms Eukarya and Bacteria in that order supporting conclusions from recent phylogenomic studies of protein architecture. Strikingly, results showed that the origin of viruses was not only ancient but was linked to Archaea, supporting the notion that the archaeal lineage is the most ancient on earth and its origin predated diversification of tRNA function and specificity.

Analysis of tRNA abstract shapes of precursor/derivative amino acids in Archaea

Wong's theory of the genetic code's origin states that because of historical constraints, codon assignment depends on the relation between precursor and derivative amino acids, a result of the coevolutionary process between amino acids' biosynthetic pathways and tRNAs. Based on arguments supporting the assumption that natural selection favors more stable and thus functionally constrained structures, we tested whether precursor and derivative tRNAs are equally evolved by measuring their structural parameters, thermostability and molecular plasticity. We also estimated the extent to which precursor and derivative tRNAs differ within Archaea. We used Archaea sequences of both precursor and derivative tRNAs in order to examine the plastic repertoires or sets of suboptimal structures at a defined free energy interval. We grouped secondary structures according to their helix nesting and adjacency using abstract shapes analysis. This clustering enabled us to infer a consensus sequence for all shapes that fit the clover leaf secondary structure [Giegerich, R., et al., Nucleic Acids Res 2004; 32 (16): 4843-51.]. This consensus sequence was then folded in order to retrieve a set of suboptimal structures. For each pair of precursor and derivative tRNAs, we compared these plastic repertoires based on the number of secondary structures, the thermostability of the minimum free energy structure and two structural parameters (base pair propensity (P) and mean length of helical stem structures (S)), which were measured for every representative secondary structure [Schultes, E.A., et al., J Mol Evol 1999; 49 (1): 76-83.]. We found that derivative tRNAs have fewer numbers of shapes, higher thermostability and more stable parameters than precursor tRNAs, a fact in full agreement with Wong's coevolution theory of the genetic code.

The Coevolution of Genes and Genetic Codes: Crick’s Frozen Accident Revisited

The standard genetic code is the nearly universal system for the translation of genes into proteins. The code exhibits two salient structural characteristics: it possesses a distinct organization that makes it extremely robust to errors in replication and translation, and it is highly redundant. The origin of these properties has intrigued researchers since the code was first discovered. One suggestion, which is the subject of this review, is that the code's organization is the outcome of the coevolution of genes and genetic codes. In 1968, Francis Crick explored the possible implications of coevolution at different stages of code evolution. Although he argues that coevolution was likely to influence the evolution of the code, he concludes that it falls short of explaining the organization of the code we see today. The recent application of mathematical modeling to study the effects of errors on the course of coevolution, suggests a different conclusion. It shows that coevolution readily generates genetic codes that are highly redundant and similar in their error-correcting organization to the standard code. We review this recent work and suggest that further affirmation of the role of coevolution can be attained by investigating the extent to which the outcome of coevolution is robust to other influences that were present during the evolution of the code.

Coevolution theory of the genetic code at age thirty

The coevolution theory of the genetic code, which postulates that prebiotic synthesis was an inadequate source of all twenty protein amino acids, and therefore some of them had to be derived from the coevolving pathways of amino acid biosynthesis, has been assessed in the light of the discoveries of the past three decades. Its four fundamental tenets regarding the essentiality of amino acid biosynthesis, role of pretran synthesis, biosynthetic imprint on codon allocations and mutability of the encoded amino acids are proven by the new knowledge. Of the factors that guided the evolutionary selection of the universal code, the relative contributions of Amino Acid Biosynthesis: Error Minimization: Stereochemical Interaction are estimated to first approximation as 40,000,000:400:1, which suggests that amino acid biosynthesis represents the dominant factor shaping the code. The utility of the coevolution theory is demonstrated by its opening up experimental expansions of the code and providing a basis for locating the root of life.

The origin of the genetic code: theories and their relationships, a review

A review of the main theories proposed to explain the origin of the genetic code is presented. I analyze arguments and data in favour of different theories proposed to explain the origin of the organization of the genetic code. It is possible to suggest a mechanism that makes compatible the different theories of the origin of the code, even if these are based on a historical or physicochemical determinism and thus appear incompatible by definition. Finally, I discuss the question of why a given number of synonymous codons was attributed to the amino acids in the genetic code.

LUCA, or just a conserved Archaeon?: Comments on Xue et al. (2003)

In their recent paper, Xue et al. used an unusual technique of rooting the universal phylogenetic tree, which resulted in positioning of the last universal common ancestor within Archaea. The present paper brings some criticisms on the methods and results achieved.

The case for an error minimizing standard genetic code

Since discovering the pattern by which amino acids are assigned to codons within the standard genetic code, investigators have explored the idea that natural selection placed biochemically similar amino acids near to one another in coding space so as to minimize the impact of mutations and/or mistranslations. The analytical evidence to support this theory has grown in sophistication and strength over the years, and counterclaims questioning its plausibility and quantitative support have yet to transcend some significant weaknesses in their approach. These weaknesses are illustrated here by means of a simple simulation model for adaptive genetic code evolution. There remain ill explored facets of the 'error minimizing' code hypothesis, however, including the mechanism and pathway by which an adaptive pattern of codon assignments emerged, the extent to which natural selection created synonym redundancy, its role in shaping the amino acid and nucleotide languages, and even the correct interpretation of the adaptive codon assignment pattern: these represent fertile areas for future research.

Transfer RNA paralogs: evidence for genetic code-amino acid biosynthesis coevolution and an archaeal root of life

A search has been performed on 2878 tRNA sequences from 60 different genomes in order to detect the existence of closely related 'alloacceptor' tRNAs accepting dissimilar amino acids that could be paralogs generated by gene duplications. This has led to the identification of extremely conserved tRNA(Phe)-tRNA(Tyr) pairs displaying as high as 94% identity between them, and also other potentially paralogous tRNA pairs in archaeal species. These paralogous pairs are enriched for amino acid pairs belonging to the same amino acid biosynthetic family, thus providing evidence for the coevolution of genetic code and amino acid biosynthesis. Overall, the genetic distances between alloacceptor tRNAs yield estimates of how closely clustered in sequence space are the tRNAs in a genome. Among 34 Bacteria, 18 Archaea and 8 Eukarya, Methanopyrus kandleri and Aeropyrum pernix have yielded the lowest alloacceptor distances and largest number of paralogous pairs. Based on a cluster-dispersion model of tRNA evolution, such tight alloacceptor clustering is a measure of primitiveness of tRNA genotypes, and places last universal common ancestor (LUCA) between the branches leading to these two archaea in the tRNA phylogenetic tree.

No accident: genetic codes freeze in error-correcting patterns of the standard genetic code

The standard genetic code poses a challenge in understanding the evolution of information processing at a fundamental level of biological organization. Genetic codes are generally coadapted with, or 'frozen' by, the protein-coding genes that they translate, and so cannot easily change by natural selection. Yet the standard code has a significantly non-random pattern that corrects common errors in the transmission of information in protein-coding genes. Because of the freezing effect and for other reasons, this pattern has been proposed not to be due to selection but rather to be incidental to other evolutionary forces or even entirely accidental. We present results from a deterministic population genetic model of code-message coevolution. We explicitly represent the freezing effect of genes on genetic codes and the perturbative effect of changes in genetic codes on genes. We incorporate characteristic patterns of mutation and translational error, namely, transition bias and positional asymmetry, respectively. Repeated selection over small successive changes produces genetic codes that are substantially, but not optimally, error correcting. In particular, our model reproduces the error-correcting patterns of the standard genetic code. Aspects of our model and results may be applicable to the general problem of adaptation to error in other natural information-processing systems.

The non-universality of the genetic code: the universal ancestor was a progenote

The coevolution theory of genetic code origin (Wong, J.T. 1975, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.72, 1909-1912) is assumed here to be substantially correct. This theory is based on the strict parallelism of the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids and the organization of the genetic code and postulates that these relationships were mediated by tRNA-like molecules on which the biosynthetic transformations between precursor and product amino acids took place. These transformations underlay the mechanism that gave rise to genetic code organization. One of the pathways which represents these transformations found in current organisms, and which are thus probably molecular fossils, is the Met-tRNA(fMet)-->fMet-tRNA(fMet)pathway. This pathway is present only in the Bacteria domain. This along with other observations and arguments leads us to believe that this pathway is a clear violation of the universality of the genetic code. Furthermore, the presence of this pathway only in the Bacteria domain seems to imply that the translation apparatus was still rapidly evolving when this pathway was fixed. This, in turn, appears to imply that the last universal common ancestor was a progenote. Finally, the implications that the finding of this pathway has for the stereochemical theory of genetic code origin are discussed.

Testing a biosynthetic theory of the genetic code: fact or artifact?

It has long been conjectured that the canonical genetic code evolved from a simpler primordial form that encoded fewer amino acids [e.g., Crick, F. H. C. (1968) J. Mol. Biol. 38, 367-379]. The most influential form of this idea, "code coevolution" [Wong, J. T.-F. (1975) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 72, 1909-1912], proposes that the genetic code coevolved with the invention of biosynthetic pathways for new amino acids. It further proposes that a comparison of modern codon assignments with the conserved metabolic pathways of amino acid biosynthesis can inform us about this history of code expansion. Here we re-examine the biochemical basis of this theory to test the validity of its statistical support. We show that the theory's definition of "precursor-product" amino acid pairs is unjustified biochemically because it requires the energetically unfavorable reversal of steps in extant metabolic pathways to achieve desired relationships. In addition, the theory neglects important biochemical constraints when calculating the probability that chance could assign precursor-product amino acids to contiguous codons. A conservative correction for these errors reveals a surprisingly high 23% probability that apparent patterns within the code are caused purely by chance. Finally, even this figure rests on post hoc assumptions about primordial codon assignments, without which the probability rises to 62% that chance alone could explain the precursor-product pairings found within the code. Thus we conclude that coevolution theory cannot adequately explain the structure of the genetic code.

The beta-sheets of proteins, the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids, and the origin of the genetic code

Two forces are generally hypothesised as being responsible for conditioning the origin of the organization of the genetic code: the physicochemical properties of amino acids and their biosynthetic relationships (relationships between precursor and product amino acids). If we assume that the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids were fundamental in defining the genetic code, then it is reasonable to expect that the distribution of physicochemical properties among the amino acids in precursor-product relationships cannot be random but must, rather, be affected by some selective constraints imposed by the structure of primitive proteins. Analysis shows that measurements representing the 'size' of amino acids, e.g. bulkiness, are specifically associated to the pairs of amino acids in precurso-product relationships. However, the size of amino acids cannot have been selected per se but, rather, because it reflects the beta-sheets of proteins which are, therefore, identified as the main adaptive theme promoting the origin of genetic code organization. Whereas there are no traces of the alpha-helix in the genetic code table. The above considerations make it necessary to re-examine the relationship linking the hydrophilicity of the dinucleoside monophosphates of anticodons and the polarity and bulkiness of amino acids. It can be concluded that this relationship seems to be meaningful only between the hydrophilicity of anticodons and the polarity of amino acids. The latter relationship is supposed to have been operative on hairpin structures, ancestors of the tRNA molecule. Moreover, it is on these very structures that the biosynthetic links between precursor and product amino acids might have been achieved, and the interaction between the hydrophilicity of anticodons and the polarity of amino acids might have had a role in the concession of codons (anticodons) from precursors to products.

The presence of codon-anticodon pairs in the acceptor stem of tRNAs

A total of 1268 available (excluding mitochondrial) tRNA sequences was used to reconstruct the common consensus image of their acceptor domains. Its structure appeared as a 11-bp-long double-stranded palindrome with complementary triplets in the center, each flanked by the 3'-ACCD and NGGU-5' motifs on each strand (D, base determinator). The palindrome readily extends up to the modern tRNA-like cloverleaf passing through an intermediate hairpin having in the center the single-stranded triplet, in supplement to its double-stranded precursor. The latter might represent an original anticodon-codon pair mapped at 1-2-3 positions of the present-day tRNA acceptors. This conclusion is supported by the striking correlation: in pairs of consensus tRNAs with complementary anticodons, their bases at the 2nd position of the acceptor stem were also complementary. Accordingly, inverse complementarity was also evident at the 71st position of the acceptor stem. With a single exception (tRNA(Phe)-tRNA(Glu) pair), the parallelism is especially impressive for the pairs of tRNAs recognized by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRS) from the opposite classes. The above complementarity still doubly presented at the key central position of real single-stranded anticodons and their hypothetical double-stranded precursors is consistent with our previous data pointing to the double-strand use of ancient RNAs in the origin of the main actors in translation- tRNAs with complementary anticodons and the two classes of aaRS.

Was it an ancient gene codifying for a hairpin RNA that, by means of direct duplication, gave rise to the primitive tRNA molecule?

Some sequences of transfer RNAs (tRNAs) which are believed to possess many of the characteristics of the ancestral sequence of this molecule are constructed. Analysis of these ancestral sequences seems to indicate that: (i) self-alignment of these sequences makes it possible for the 3'-half of the reconstructed molecule to display a significant similarity to the 5'-half, thus indicating that the two halves of tRNA might be paralogous, and (ii) the 5'-half of the ancestral tRNA can reconstruct an almost perfect hairpin structure. These observations give weight to the hypothesis suggesting that the primitive tRNA molecule may have originated through direct duplication of an ancient gene codifying for a hairpin structure.