Robin D. Knight

A simple model based on mutation and selection explains trends in codon and amino-acid usage and GC composition within and across genomes

BackgroundCorrelations between genome composition (in terms of GC content) and usage of particular codons and amino acids have been widely reported, but poorly explained. We show here that a simple model of processes acting at the nucleotide level explains codon usage across a large sample of species (311 bacteria, 28 archaea and 257 eukaryotes). The model quantitatively predicts responses (slope and intercept of the regression line on genome GC content) of individual codons and amino acids to genome composition.ResultsCodons respond to genome composition on the basis of their GC content relative to their synonyms (explaining 71-87% of the variance in response among the different codons, depending on measure). Amino-acid responses are determined by the mean GC content of their codons (explaining 71-79% of the variance). Similar trends hold for genes within a genome. Position-dependent selection for error minimization explains why individual bases respond differently to directional mutation pressure.ConclusionsOur model suggests that GC content drives codon usage (rather than the converse). It unifies a large body of empirical evidence concerning relationships between GC content and amino-acid or codon usage in disparate systems. The relationship between GC content and codon and amino-acid usage is ahistorical; it is replicated independently in the three domains of living organisms, reinforcing the idea that genes and genomes at mutation/selection equilibrium reproduce a unique relationship between nucleic acid and protein composition. Thus, the model may be useful in predicting amino-acid or nucleotide sequences in poorly characterized taxa.

The molecular basis of nuclear genetic code change in ciliates

BACKGROUND The nuclear genetic code has changed in several lineages of ciliates. These changes, UAR to glutamine and UGA to cysteine, imply that eukaryotic release factor 1 (eRF1), the protein that recognizes stop codons and terminates translation, changes specificity. Here we test whether changes in eRF1 drive genetic code evolution. RESULTS Database sequence analysis reveals numerous genetic code alterations in ciliates, including UGA --> tryptophan in Blepharisma americanum and the distantly related Colpoda. We sequenced eRF1 from four ciliates: B. americanum, a heterotrich that independently derived the same eRF1 specificity as Euplotes, and three spirotrichs, Stylonychia lemnae, S. mytilus, and Oxytricha trifallax, that independently derived the same genetic code as Tetrahymena (UAR --> glutamine). Distantly related ciliates with similar codes show characteristic changes in eRF1. We used a sliding window analysis to test associations between changes in specific eRF1 residues and changes in the genetic code. The regions of eRF1 that display convergent substitutions are identical to those identified in a recently reported nonsense suppression mutant screen in yeast. CONCLUSIONS Genetic code change by stop codon reassignment is surprisingly frequent in ciliates, with UGA --> tryptophan occurring twice independently. This is the first description of this code, previously found only in bacteria and mitochondria, in a eukaryotic nuclear genome. eRF1 has evolved strikingly convergently in lineages with variant genetic codes. The strong concordance with biochemical data indicates that our methodology may be generally useful for detecting molecular determinants of biochemical changes in evolution.

How mitochondria redefine the code.

Abstract. Annotated, complete DNA sequences are available for 213 mitochondrial genomes from 132 species. These provide an extensive sample of evolutionary adjustment of codon usage and meaning spanning the history of this organelle. Because most known coding changes are mitochondrial, such data bear on the general mechanism of codon reassignment. Coding changes have been attributed variously to loss of codons due to changes in directional mutation affecting the genome GC content (Osawa and Jukes 1988), to pressure to reduce the number of mitochondrial tRNAs to minimize the genome size (Anderson and Kurland 1991), and to the existence of transitional coding mechanisms in which translation is ambiguous (Schultz and Yarus 1994a). We find that a succession of such steps explains existing reassignments well. In particular, (1) Genomic variation in the prevalence of a codons third-position nucleotide predicts relative mitochondrial codon usage well, though GC content does not. This is because A and T, and G and C, are uncorrelated in mitochondrial genomes. (2) Codons predicted to reach zero usage (disappear) do so more often than expected by chance, and codons that do disappear are disproportionately likely to be reassigned. However, codons predicted to disappear are not significantly more likely to be reassigned. Therefore, low codon frequencies can be related to codon reassignment, but appear to be neither necessary nor sufficient for reassignment. (3) Changes in the genetic code are not more likely to accompany smaller numbers of tRNA genes and are not more frequent in smaller genomes. Thus, mitochondrial codons are not reassigned during demonstrable selection for decreased genome size. Instead, the data suggest that both codon disappearance and codon reassignment depend on at least one other event. This mitochondrial event (leading to reassignment) occurs more frequently when a codon has disappeared, and produces only a small subset of possible reassignments. We suggest that coding ambiguity, the extension of a tRNAs decoding capacity beyond its original set of codons, is the second event. Ambiguity can act alone but often acts in concert with codon disappearance, which promotes codon reassignment.

The Early Evolution of the Genetic Code

Together, research into different components of the translation apparatus is beginning to paint a consistent picture of how the genetic code might have evolved. The primordial code, influenced by direct interactions between bases and amino acids probably dates back to the RNA world or earlier. The invention of tRNAs and ribozyme-based aaRSs made this mapping indirect, allowing swapping of amino acids between codons and hence a level of optimization. Additionally, the code probably underwent a process of expansion from relatively few amino acids to the modern complement of 20. By the time protein aaRSs took over, translation was probably well developed; however, some amino acids, such as Gln, Asn, and Trp, may postdate the first protein aaRSs. Today, laboratory experiments that alter the specificity of aaRSs for amino acids and/or tRNA isoacceptors recapitulate some of these processes. Finally, changes to both tRNAs and release factors produced the range of modern codes, particularly through posttranscriptional base modification and changes in release factors. This diversity of events suggests that an explanation for the fixation of the canonical code in the LUCA will require more historical reconstruction than reasoning from chemical principles.*E-mail: rdknight@princeton.edu (R. D. K.), lfl@princeton.edu (L. F. L.)

Rhyme or reason: RNA-arginine interactions and the genetic code

Theories about the origin of the genetic code require specific recognition between nucleic acids and amino acids at some stage of the codes evolution. A statistical analysis of arginine-binding RNA aptamers now offers the opportunity to test such interactions and provides the strongest support for an intrinsic affinity between any amino acid and its codons.

Guilt by association: The arginine case revisited

If the genetic code arose in an RNA world, present codon assignments may reflect primordial RNA-amino acid affinities. Whether aptamers selected from random pools to bind free amino acids do so using the cognate codons at their binding sites has been controversial. Here we defend and extend our previous analysis of arginine binding sites, and propose a model for the maintenance of codon-amino acid interactions through the evolution of amino acids from ribozyme cofactors into the building blocks of proteins.