Experimental verification of the error minimization theory using non-standard genetic codes constructed in vitro
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife Assessment
This useful work addresses a longstanding question of how the extant genetic code came to be selected and conserved almost universally across life. Using a mutational approach and a small set of reporters, the authors demonstrate that the mutational impact was similar for non-standard genetic codes. Considering the limitations of the approach, the data are incomplete in supporting the claim of having provided 'experimental verification of the error minimization theory'.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
All living systems use an almost identical genetic code, the standard genetic code, in which 20 amino acids are assigned to 61 codons non-randomly. According to the error minimization theory, amino acids are arranged to minimize the mutational effect on protein function, while experimental verification remains limited. In this study, we constructed 10 non-standard genetic codes in vitro by reassigning three amino acids (Ala, Ser, and Leu) in vacant codons of the minimal genetic code, which consists of 21 tRNAs. Most of these non-standard genetic codes have a higher cost of amino acid replacement than the standard genetic code, calculated based on three amino acid properties: polar requirement (PR), molecular volume (MV), and hydropathy index (HI). The protein function of three reporter genes expressed using these non-standard genetic codes decreased similarly when random mutations were introduced into the genes, implying that the effect of mutations was similar across all the non-standard genetic codes tested here. This result provides direct experimental evidence that mutational robustness does not significantly change in individual reporter protein activity when the genetic code is altered within the range of mutational cost tested in this study (Cost PR : 5.29 – 5.77, Cost MV : 1848 – 2348, and Cost HI : 3.27 – 5.10), which covers approximately 18.4% (PR), 37.6% (MV), and 50.8% (HI) of possible cost range achievable among one million randomly-generated genetic codes.
Article activity feed
-
eLife Assessment
This useful work addresses a longstanding question of how the extant genetic code came to be selected and conserved almost universally across life. Using a mutational approach and a small set of reporters, the authors demonstrate that the mutational impact was similar for non-standard genetic codes. Considering the limitations of the approach, the data are incomplete in supporting the claim of having provided 'experimental verification of the error minimization theory'.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
In this manuscript, the authors investigate the relationship between genetic codes and their robustness to single-point mutations. They construct ten alternative genetic codes by reassigning nine codons to Leu, Ser, or Ala, and assess mutational robustness using three reporter proteins subjected to error-prone PCR. This represents an interesting experimental approach to addressing the hypothesis that the standard genetic code is optimized for mutational robustness.
Major comment:
While I find the experimental design valuable, I am not fully convinced by the authors' conclusion that "alterations of the genetic code within the ranges explored in this study have no significant effect on mutational robustness". The current analysis is based on the functional output of three individual reporter proteins. Given …
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
In this manuscript, the authors investigate the relationship between genetic codes and their robustness to single-point mutations. They construct ten alternative genetic codes by reassigning nine codons to Leu, Ser, or Ala, and assess mutational robustness using three reporter proteins subjected to error-prone PCR. This represents an interesting experimental approach to addressing the hypothesis that the standard genetic code is optimized for mutational robustness.
Major comment:
While I find the experimental design valuable, I am not fully convinced by the authors' conclusion that "alterations of the genetic code within the ranges explored in this study have no significant effect on mutational robustness". The current analysis is based on the functional output of three individual reporter proteins. Given that cellular systems involve far more complex interactions, it would be more appropriate to limit this conclusion to mutational robustness at the level of individual protein activity, rather than making broader generalizations.
Specific comments:
(1) tRNA modification and expression efficiency (Page 5, line 131).
The authors attribute the observed inefficiency to the lack of chemical modifications in the tRNAs used. However, gene expression efficiency can also be strongly influenced by DNA sequence design. To better support this claim, it would be helpful to compare luciferase activity when expressed using native E. coli tRNAs. This comparison could clarify whether the observed effects are due to tRNA modification status or other sequence-dependent factors.
(2) Discrepancy between expression level and activity (Figure S7 vs Figure S8).
Although GAL expression levels appear similar across different genetic codes (Figure S7), their activities differ substantially (Figure S8), even in the low-mutation library. This discrepancy warrants further investigation. Possible explanations include differences in protein folding efficiency or translational error rates, as mentioned by the authors in the main text.
To address this, the authors could analyze the protein products using mass spectrometry. If this is not feasible due to low expression levels, alternative approaches such as SDS-PAGE (e.g., with radiolabeling or Western blotting) would still provide valuable information. Additionally, comparing activity after in vitro refolding could help distinguish between folding defects and sequence-level errors. While I understand that the primary aim of this study is to compare mutational robustness across genetic codes, discussing these observations would significantly enhance the mechanistic insight of the work.
(3) Protein expression analysis for additional reporters.
Since protein expression levels are critical for interpreting reporter activity, similar analyses should also be performed for luciferase (Luc) and mSG in both high- and low-mutation libraries. This would ensure that differences in activity are not confounded by variations in protein abundance.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The study addresses the long-standing question in molecular biology and genetics: why has nature selected the current genetic code (SGC, or standard genetic code)? The authors have tested 'error minimization theory', one of the prevailing hypotheses to explain this. Their approach is to create a minimum genetic code (MGC) and its variants (3^9 theoretical possible codes). Using three parameters to quantify the effect of mutations (Polarity, volume, and hydropathy), they computationally test the cost of these genetic codes (3^9) by simulations. Finally, they test this cost experimentally using an in vitro translation system with 10 select genetic code variants with a range of costs (low to high). They use three randomly mutated reporter genes for this purpose - beta-galactosidase, luciferase, and …
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The study addresses the long-standing question in molecular biology and genetics: why has nature selected the current genetic code (SGC, or standard genetic code)? The authors have tested 'error minimization theory', one of the prevailing hypotheses to explain this. Their approach is to create a minimum genetic code (MGC) and its variants (3^9 theoretical possible codes). Using three parameters to quantify the effect of mutations (Polarity, volume, and hydropathy), they computationally test the cost of these genetic codes (3^9) by simulations. Finally, they test this cost experimentally using an in vitro translation system with 10 select genetic code variants with a range of costs (low to high). They use three randomly mutated reporter genes for this purpose - beta-galactosidase, luciferase, and mSG. They find no correlation between the cost of the genetic code and the reporters' output. Based on these observations, they suggest that error-minimization theory may not explain the current egocentric code.
The question they are asking is very exciting, and their approach is solid. The authors are very careful in their analyses and conclusions.
Major Concerns:
(1) The rationale for using MGC instead of SGC: It is unclear why the authors rely on the MGC for this analysis when the central question concerns the SGC. If the goal is to evaluate whether the SGC minimizes mutational cost, a more direct approach would be to generate alternative variants of the SGC itself and compare their mutational cost distributions. At present, it is difficult to assess whether conclusions drawn from this comparison are fully relevant to the stated biological question.
(2) The mutational cost analysis appears biologically oversimplified because all amino acid substitutions are treated equivalently. The analysis assumes that all mutations contribute equally to fitness consequences, which does not reflect biological reality. In natural proteins, the impact of an amino acid substitution depends strongly on its structural and functional context. For example, substitutions affecting catalytic residues, ligand-binding interfaces, phosphorylation sites, or other regulatory motifs can severely impair protein function even when associated changes in polarity, hydropathy, or volume are minimal. Conversely, substitutions in structurally permissive or functionally dispensable regions may have little or no measurable effect despite larger physicochemical differences. Therefore, changes in polarity, hydropathy, and volume alone do not necessarily predict functional consequences.
(3) It is not clear why they increased the concentration of the two tRNAs in near-SGC. Have they maintained the same tRNA concentrations in experiments explained in Fig 5 for all 10 genetic codes tested?
-
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Miyachi and Ichihashi investigate whether the arrangement of the genetic code affects mutational robustness. Using an in vitro minimal genetic code with vacant codons, they constructed 10 non-standard genetic codes by reassigning Ala, Ser, and Leu, generating codes with replacement costs that were generally higher than those of the standard genetic code across several amino acid property measures. They then tested how random mutations affected the activity of reporter proteins translated under these altered codes. Although error minimization theory predicts that higher-cost codes should make mutations more harmful, the authors report that protein function declined to a similar extent across all codes examined, suggesting that mutational robustness remains largely unchanged within …
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Miyachi and Ichihashi investigate whether the arrangement of the genetic code affects mutational robustness. Using an in vitro minimal genetic code with vacant codons, they constructed 10 non-standard genetic codes by reassigning Ala, Ser, and Leu, generating codes with replacement costs that were generally higher than those of the standard genetic code across several amino acid property measures. They then tested how random mutations affected the activity of reporter proteins translated under these altered codes. Although error minimization theory predicts that higher-cost codes should make mutations more harmful, the authors report that protein function declined to a similar extent across all codes examined, suggesting that mutational robustness remains largely unchanged within the range of genetic code alterations tested here.
Strengths:
This is an interesting study that investigates one of the most fundamental and intriguing questions in molecular evolution: the emergence of the genetic code, which is nearly universal across nature. The in vitro approach is a powerful aspect of the work and provides an opportunity to examine this phenomenon experimentally at a depth that has previously been inaccessible.
Weaknesses:
However, the authors' use of random mutation libraries has certain limitations that prevent the study from realizing its full potential to uncover the mechanisms governing the molecular evolution of the genetic code.
Major points:
(1) Statistical analyses are missing for several of the manuscript's main claims. This issue applies throughout the paper, including, but not limited to, Figures 1D, 2B, 4B-D, and 5B.
(2) In Figure 2A, the authors modify the NanoLuc gene by reassigning Ala, Leu, or Ser to new codons and elegantly show that the in vitro availability of the corresponding tRNAs is important for protein function. However, the functional importance of the specific modified positions within NanoLuc is not clear. As a result, it is difficult to determine what the expected consequences of these codon changes should be, which in turn limits the interpretation of the observed changes in protein activity. To improve the interpretability of this experiment, the authors should report exactly how many codons were modified in each variant and, ideally, examine the effect of progressively increasing the number of reassigned codons.
(3) The calculations presented in Figure 3 raise an interesting conceptual question: why does the near-standard genetic code not exhibit the lowest cost? One possible explanation is that the standard genetic code evolved under multiple competing constraints and is therefore not expected to be optimal for any single cost metric, while still achieving strong overall performance. In this context, it would be informative if the authors combined the three cost measures into a single integrated index and examined whether the near-SGC performs more favorably when all three dimensions are considered together. Such an analysis could add important depth to the study.
(4) It is difficult to assess the consequences of the random mutations presented in Figure 4 on reporter gene function based solely on the reported "error rate/base" parameter. In particular, the x-axis in Figure 4B should be converted into the estimated number of mutations per gene. This would make the results more intuitive and would allow the reader to better evaluate the expected degree of disruption to protein function.
(5) A central limitation of the random mutagenesis libraries used in Figure 5, which also underlie one of the manuscript's main claims, is that the exact mutations and their distribution across the reporter genes are not reported. In addition, protein activity is measured only at the level of the entire library, without directly linking individual mutations to their functional consequences. This substantially limits mechanistic interpretation. In my view, this issue can only be addressed convincingly if the authors test a set of defined variants carrying specific mutations and directly evaluate their functional effects.
(6) Related to the previous point, in Figures 5C, 5E, and 5G, the authors present the ratio between low-mutation-rate and high-mutation-rate libraries. However, because each library contains a different collection of mutations, it is unclear what can be inferred from these comparisons. To overcome this limitation, the authors should assess the effects of altered genetic codes on specific, defined mutations rather than on heterogeneous mutation pools alone.
(7) Along the same lines, in Figures 5C, 5E, and 5G, it is unclear why the effects of random mutations would be expected to correlate with the three calculated cost metrics, given that the positions, identities, and functional relevance of the mutations within the genes are not known. Without this information, the biological meaning of these correlations remains difficult to evaluate.
(8) For each mutagenesis library, the number of variants, the average number of mutations per variant, and the distribution of mutation positions should be reported clearly and transparently. These details are important for evaluating the strength of the conclusions.
(9) Because only three amino acids were manipulated in the non-standard genetic codes, it remains unclear whether these particular amino acids occupy positions in the reporter proteins that are especially important for function and therefore likely to generate strong phenotypic effects. More broadly, it is not clear whether the assay is sufficiently sensitive to detect the effects of only a subset of deleterious variants within a pooled library. This point should be addressed more explicitly.
-
