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.

The polyphyletic origins of glycyl-tRNA synthetase and lysyl-tRNA synthetase and their implications.

I analyzed the polyphyletic origin of glycyl-tRNA synthetase (GlyRS) and lysyl-tRNA synthetase (LysRS), making plausible the following implications. The fact that the genetic code needed to evolve aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (ARSs) only very late would be in perfect agreement with a late origin, in the main phyletic lineages, of both GlyRS and LysRS. Indeed, as suggested by the coevolution theory, since the genetic code was structured by biosynthetic relationships between amino acids and as these occurred on tRNA-like molecules which were evidently already loaded with amino acids during its structuring, this made possible a late origin of ARSs. All this corroborates the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code to the detriment of theories which would instead predict an early intervention of the action of ARSs in organizing the genetic code. Furthermore, the assembly of the GlyRS and LysRS protein domains in main phyletic lineages is itself at least evidence of the possibility that ancestral genes were assembled using pieces of genetic material that coded these protein domains. This is in accordance with the exon theory of genes which postulates that ancestral exons coded for protein domains or modules that were assembled to form the first genes. This theory is exemplified precisely in the evolution of both GlyRS and LysRS which occurred through the assembly of protein domains in the main phyletic lineages, as analyzed here. Furthermore, this late assembly of protein domains of these proteins into the two main phyletic lineages, i.e. a polyphyletic origin of both GlyRS and LysRS, appears to corroborate the progenote evolutionary stage for both LUCA and at least the first part of the evolutionary stages of the ancestor of bacteria and that of archaea. Indeed, this polyphyletic origin would imply that the genetic code was still evolving because at least two ARSs, i.e. proteins that make the genetic code possible today, were still evolving. This would imply that the evolutionary stages involved were characterized not by cells but by protocells, that is, by progenotes because this is precisely the definition of a progenote. This conclusion would be strengthened by the observation that both GlyRS and LysRS originating in the phyletic lineages leading to bacteria and archaea, would demonstrate that, more generally, proteins were most likely still in rapid and progressive evolution. Namely, a polyphyletic origin of proteins which would qualify at least the initial phase of the evolutionary stage of the ancestor of bacteria and that of archaea as stages belonging to the progenote.