The genetic code is known to have a high level of error robustness and has been shown to be very error robust compared to randomly selected codes, but to be significantly less error robust than a certain code found by a heuristic algorithm. We formulate this optimization problem as a Quadratic Assignment Problem and use this to formally verify that the code found by the heuristic algorithm is the global optimum. We also argue that it is strongly misleading to compare the genetic code only with codes sampled from the fixed block model, because the real code space is orders of magnitude larger. We thus enlarge the space from which random codes can be sampled from approximately 2.433 × 10(18) codes to approximately 5.908 × 10(45) codes. We do this by leaving the fixed block model, and using the wobble rules to formulate the characteristics acceptable for a genetic code. By relaxing more constraints, three larger spaces are also constructed. Using a modified error function, the genetic code is found to be more error robust compared to a background of randomly generated codes with increasing space size. We point out that these results do not necessarily imply that the code was optimized during evolution for error minimization, but that other mechanisms could be the reason for this error robustness.

The “RNA world” hypothesis is seen as one of the main contenders for a viable theory on the origin of life. Relatively small RNAs have catalytic power, RNA is everywhere in present-day life, the ribosome is seen as a ribozyme, and rRNA and tRNA are crucial for modern protein synthesis. However, this view is incomplete at best. The modern protein-RNA ribosome most probably is not a distorted form of a “pure RNA ribosome” evolution started out with. Though the oldest center of the ribosome seems “RNA only”, we cannot conclude from this that it ever functioned in an environment without amino acids and/or peptides. Very small RNAs (versatile and stable due to basepairing) and amino acids, as well as dipeptides, coevolved. Remember, it is the amino group of aminoacylated tRNA that attacks peptidyl-tRNA, destroying the bond between peptide and tRNA. This activity of the amino acid part of aminoacyl-tRNA illustrates the centrality of amino acids in life. With the rise of the “RNA world” view of early life, the pendulum seems to have swung too much towards the ribozymatic part of early biochemistry. The necessary presence and activity of amino acids and peptides is in need of highlighting. In this article, we try to bring the role of the peptide component of early life back into focus. We argue that an RNA world completely independent of amino acids never existed.

Based on (i) an analysis of the regularities in the standard genetic code and (ii) comparative genomics of the anticodon modification machinery in the three branches of life, we derive the tRNA set and its anticodon modifications as it was present in LUCA. Previously we proposed that an early ancestor of LUCA contained a set of 23 tRNAs with unmodified anticodons that was capable of translating all 20 amino acids while reading 55 of the 61 sense codons of the standard genetic code (SGC). Here we use biochemical and genomic evidence to derive that LUCA contained a set of 44 or 45 tRNAs containing 2 or 3 modifications while reading 59 or 60 of the 61 sense codons. Subsequent tRNA modifications occurred independently in the Bacteria and Eucarya, while the Archaea have remained quite close to the tRNA set as it was present in LUCA.

No abstract

BackgroundRecently, important discoveries regarding the archaeon that functioned as the “host” in the merger with a bacterium that led to the eukaryotes, its “complex” nature, and its phylogenetic relationship to eukaryotes, have been reported. Based on these new insights proposals have been put forward to get rid of the three-domain Model of life, and replace it with a two-domain model.ResultsWe present arguments (both regarding timing, complexity, and chemical nature of specific evolutionary processes, as well as regarding genetic structure) to resist such proposals. The three-domain Model represents an accurate description of the differences at the most fundamental level of living organisms, as the eukaryotic lineage that arose from this unique merging event is distinct from both Archaea and Bacteria in a myriad of crucial ways.ConclusionsWe maintain that “a natural system of organisms”, as proposed when the three-domain Model of life was introduced, should not be revised when considering the recent discoveries, however exciting they may be.