The DNA code is redundant, there are 20 amino acids for 64 possible nucleotide c

Question

The DNA code is redundant, there are 20 amino acids for 64 possible nucleotide combinations. Therefore some amino acid are coded by several different nucleotide combinations. While Leucine is coded by 6 codons, Tryptophan is coded only by 1 codon. It is worth saying the set of codons that code for one given amino acid tend to look alike each other more than random. Usually it is only the last nucleic acid that does not modify the coded amino-acid (third-position wobble).

Therefore, I would expect that the genetic code cannot not entirely be explained by "it happened to occur this way the first time (at the origin of life or in the last universal common ancestor [LUCA]) and it never changed".

So, my questions are:

Why some amino acids are coded by a big set of codons while others are coded only by one codon?

And more specifically, why methionine is coded by only one codon (start codon = AUG) where all other amino-acids (except Tryptophan, Selenocysteine and Pyrrolysine) are coded for by more than one codon?

Or more broadly: Why (by which mechanisms, which selective pressure if any, ...) has the genetic code evolved the redundancies?

Explanation / Answer

In short, with a four-base system, and a codon size of 1, you get four possible amino acids. Silly system. A codon size of 2 gives 16. Not too shabby, but not a lot of room for growth, and not enough for those 20 amino acids. Codons of size 3 gives 64 - plenty of room to work with and it covers all your forseeable amino acids, and then some, without being too wasteful.

The redundancy, known as degeneracy, is pretty straightforward. There's room to expand, and any redundancy/degeneracy will only reduce the likelihood of errors. That's a huge benefit. For some amino acids, the first two bases are enough. That third position can be quite tolerant to mutation, which is very beneficial to organisms. It appears to be even more fine-tuned, to the degree that redundancy often not only reduces the likelihood of mutation but also reduces the damage caused when a base does mutate. Swapping a hydrophobic AA for another hydrophobic one is less likely to cause aberrant protein function, and anything with a U in the middle is probably hydrophobic. Convenient! I'll also note that, while it's not perfect or even a significant correlation, the more popular amino acids tend to get more redundancy; tryptophan is traditionally the least common AA.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.