Unassigned Codons, Nonsense Suppression, and Anticodon Modifications in the Evolution of the Genetic Code

The origin of the genetic code is a central open problem regarding the early evolution of life. Here, we consider two undeveloped but important aspects of possible scenarios for the evolutionary pathway of the translation machinery: the role of unassigned codons in early stages of the code and the incorporation of tRNA anticodon modifications. As the first codons started to encode amino acids, the translation machinery likely was faced with a large number of unassigned codons. Current molecular scenarios for the evolution of the code usually assume the very rapid assignment of all codons before all 20 amino acids became encoded. We show that the phenomenon of nonsense suppression as observed in current organisms allows for a scenario in which many unassigned codons persisted throughout most of the evolutionary development of the code. In addition, we demonstrate that incorporation of anticodon modifications at a late stage is feasible. The wobble rules allow a set of 20 tRNAs fully lacking anticodon modifications to encode all 20 canonical amino acids. These observations have implications for the biochemical plausibility of early stages in the evolution of the genetic code predating tRNA anticodon modifications and allow for effective translation by a relatively small and simple early tRNA set

On distinguishing between canonical tRNA genes and tRNA gene fragments in prokaryotes

Automated genome annotation is essential for extracting biological information from sequence data. The identification and annotation of tRNA genes is frequently performed by the software package tRNAscan-SE, the output of which is listed for selected genomes in the Genomic tRNA database (GtRNAdb). Here, we highlight a pervasive error in prokaryotic tRNA gene sets on GtRNAdb: the miscategorization of partial, non-canonical tRNA genes as standard, canonical tRNA genes. Firstly, we demonstrate the issue using the tRNA gene sets of 20 organisms from the archaeal taxon Thermococcaceae. According to GtRNAdb, these organisms collectively deviate from the expected set of tRNA genes in 15 instances, including the listing of eleven putative canonical tRNA genes. However, after detailed manual annotation, only one of these eleven remains; the others are either partial, noncanonical tRNA genes resulting from the integration of genetic elements or CRISPR-Cas activity (seven instances), or attributable to ambiguities in input sequences (three instances). Secondly, we show that similar examples of the mis-categorization of predicted tRNA sequences occur throughout the prokaryotic sections of GtRNAdb. While both canonical and non-canonical prokaryotic tRNA gene sequences identified by tRNAscan-SE are biologically interesting, the challenge of reliably distinguishing between them remains. We recommend employing a combination of (i) screening input sequences for the genetic elements typically associated with non-canonical tRNA genes, and ambiguities, (ii) activating the tRNAscan-SE automated pseudogene detection function, and (iii) scrutinizing predicted tRNA genes with low isotype scores. These measures greatly reduce manual annotation efforts, and lead to improved prokaryotic tRNA gene set predictions

On distinguishing between canonical tRNA genes and tRNA gene fragments in prokaryotes

Automated genome annotation is essential for extracting biological information from sequence data. The identification and annotation of tRNA genes is frequently performed by the software package tRNAscan-SE, the output of which is listed for selected genomes in the Genomic tRNA database (GtRNAdb). Here, we highlight a pervasive error in prokaryotic tRNA gene sets on GtRNAdb: the miscategorization of partial, non-canonical tRNA genes as standard, canonical tRNA genes. Firstly, we demonstrate the issue using the tRNA gene sets of 20 organisms from the archaeal taxon Thermococcaceae. According to GtRNAdb, these organisms collectively deviate from the expected set of tRNA genes in 15 instances, including the listing of eleven putative canonical tRNA genes. However, after detailed manual annotation, only one of these eleven remains; the others are either partial, noncanonical tRNA genes resulting from the integration of genetic elements or CRISPR-Cas activity (seven instances), or attributable to ambiguities in input sequences (three instances). Secondly, we show that similar examples of the mis-categorization of predicted tRNA sequences occur throughout the prokaryotic sections of GtRNAdb. While both canonical and non-canonical prokaryotic tRNA gene sequences identified by tRNAscan-SE are biologically interesting, the challenge of reliably distinguishing between them remains. We recommend employing a combination of (i) screening input sequences for the genetic elements typically associated with non-canonical tRNA genes, and ambiguities, (ii) activating the tRNAscan-SE automated pseudogene detection function, and (iii) scrutinizing predicted tRNA genes with low isotype scores. These measures greatly reduce manual annotation efforts, and lead to improved prokaryotic tRNA gene set predictions

On distinguishing between canonical tRNA genes and tRNA gene fragments in prokaryotes

Automated genome annotation is essential for extracting biological information from sequence data. The identification and annotation of tRNA genes is frequently performed by the software package tRNAscan-SE, the output of which is listed for selected genomes in the Genomic tRNA database (GtRNAdb). Here, we highlight a pervasive error in prokaryotic tRNA gene sets on GtRNAdb: the mis-categorization of partial, non-canonical tRNA genes as standard, canonical tRNA genes. Firstly, we demonstrate the issue using the tRNA gene sets of 20 organisms from the archaeal taxon Thermococcaceae. According to GtRNAdb, these organisms collectively deviate from the expected set of tRNA genes in 15 instances, including the listing of eleven putative canonical tRNA genes. However, after detailed manual annotation, only one of these eleven remains; the others are either partial, non-canonical tRNA genes resulting from the integration of genetic elements or CRISPR-Cas activity (seven instances), or attributable to ambiguities in input sequences (three instances). Secondly, we show that similar examples of the mis-categorization of predicted tRNA sequences occur throughout the prokaryotic sections of GtRNAdb. While both canonical and non-canonical prokaryotic tRNA gene sequences identified by tRNAscan-SE are biologically interesting, the challenge of reliably distinguishing between them remains. We recommend employing a combination of (i) screening input sequences for the genetic elements typically associated with non-canonical tRNA genes, and ambiguities, (ii) activating the tRNAscan-SE automated pseudogene detection function, and (iii) scrutinizing predicted tRNA genes with low isotype scores. These measures greatly reduce manual annotation efforts, and lead to improved prokaryotic tRNA gene set predictions

The contours of evolution: In defence of Darwin's tree of life paradigm

Both the concept of a Darwinian tree of life (TOL) and the possibility of its accurate reconstruction have been much criticized. Criticisms mostly revolve around the extensive occurrence of lateral gene transfer (LGT), instances of uptake of complete organisms to become organelles (with the associated subsequent gene transfer to the nucleus), as well as the implications of more subtle aspects of the biological species concept. Here we argue that none of these criticisms are sufficient to abandon the valuable TOL concept and the biological realities it captures. Especially important is the need to conceptually distinguish between organismal trees and gene trees, which necessitates incorporating insights of widely occurring LGT into modern evolutionary theory. We demonstrate that all criticisms, while based on important new findings, do not invalidate the TOL. After considering the implications of these new insights, we find that the contours of evolution are best represented by a TOL

Renewing Linnaean taxonomy: a proposal to restructure the highest levels of the Natural System

During the last century enormous progress has been made in the understanding of biological diversity, involving a dramatic shift from macroscopic to microscopic organisms. The question now arises as to whether the Natural System introduced by Carl Linnaeus, which has served as the central system for organizing biological diversity, can accommodate the great expansion of diversity that has been discovered. Important discoveries regarding biological diversity have not been fully integrated into a formal, coherent taxonomic system. In addition, because of taxonomic challenges and conflicts, various proposals have been made to abandon key aspects of the Linnaean system. We review the current status of taxonomy of the living world, focussing on groups at the taxonomic level of phylum and above. We summarize the main arguments against and in favour of abandoning aspects of the Linnaean system. Based on these considerations, we conclude that retaining the Linnaean Natural System provides important advantages. We propose a relatively small number of amendments for extending this system, particularly to include the named rank of world (Latin alternative mundis) formally to include non-cellular entities (viruses), and the named rank of empire (Latin alternative imperium) to accommodate the depth of diversity in (unicellular) eukaryotes that has been uncovered. We argue that in the case of both the eukaryotic domain and the viruses the cladistic approach intrinsically fails. However, the resulting semi-cladistic system provides a productive way forward that can help resolve taxonomic challenges. The amendments proposed allow us to: (i) retain named taxonomic levels and the three-domain system, (ii) improve understanding of the main eukaryotic lineages, and (iii) incorporate viruses into the Natural System. Of note, the proposal described herein is intended to serve as the starting point for a broad scientific discussion regarding the modernization of the Linnaean system