The genetic code is not an optimal code in a model taking into account both the biosynthetic relationships between amino acids and their physicochemical properties

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 Ancient Operational Code is Embedded in the Amino Acid Substitution Matrix and aaRS Phylogenies

The underlying structure of the canonical amino acid substitution matrix (aaSM) is examined by considering stepwise improvements in the differential recognition of amino acids according to their chemical properties during the branching history of the two aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS) superfamilies. The evolutionary expansion of the genetic code is described by a simple parameterization of the aaSM, in which (i) the number of distinguishable amino acid types, (ii) the matrix dimension and (iii) the number of parameters, each increases by one for each bifurcation in an aaRS phylogeny. Parameterized matrices corresponding to trees in which the size of an amino acid sidechain is the only discernible property behind its categorization as a substrate, exclusively for a Class I or II aaRS, provide a significantly better fit to empirically determined aaSM than trees with random bifurcation patterns. A second split between polar and nonpolar amino acids in each Class effects a vastly greater further improvement. The earliest Class-separated epochs in the phylogenies of the aaRS reflect these enzymes' capability to distinguish tRNAs through the recognition of acceptor stem identity elements via the minor (Class I) and major (Class II) helical grooves, which is how the ancient operational code functioned. The advent of tRNA recognition using the anticodon loop supports the evolution of the optimal map of amino acid chemistry found in the later genetic code, an essentially digital categorization, in which polarity is the major functional property, compensating for the unrefined, haphazard differentiation of amino acids achieved by the operational code.

A Non-neutral Origin for Error Minimization in the Origin of the Genetic Code

Massey (J Mol Evol 67:510-516, 2008; J Theor Biol 408:237-242, 2016; Nat Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-017-9669-3, 2018) claims that the error minimization of the genetic code is derived by means of a neutral process and was not due to the action of natural selection. Here, I argue that this neutralist hypothesis of the origin of error minimization is not based directly on any neutral process but it could be only indirectly. On the contrary, it has been natural selection that has acted during the origin of the genetic code determining the property that similar amino acids are coded by similar codons within the genetic code table.