ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2014
Are proposed early genetic codes capable of encoding viable proteins?
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconstruction and Characterization of Thermally Stable and Catalytically Active Proteins Comprising an Alphabet of ~ 13 Amino Acids.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020Article
- Reduced alphabet of prebiotic amino acids optimally encodes the conformational space of diverse extant protein folds.BMC evolutionary biology · 2019Article
- Reciprocal Nucleopeptides as the Ancestral Darwinian Self-Replicator.Molecular biology and evolution · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proteins are elaborate biopolymers balancing between contradicting intrinsic propensities to fold, aggregate, or remain disordered. Assessing their primary structural preferences observable without evolutionary optimization has been reinforced by the recent identification of de novo proteins that have emerged from previously non-coding sequences. In this paper we investigate structural preferences of hypothetical proteins translated from random DNA segments using the standard genetic code and three of its proposed evolutionarily predecessor models encoding 10, 6, and 4 amino acids, respectively. Our only main assumption is that the disorder, aggregation, and transmembrane helix predictions used are able to reflect the differences in the trends of the protein sets investigated. We found that the 10-residue code encodes proteins that resemble modern proteins in their predicted structural properties. All of the investigated early genetic codes give rise to proteins with enhanced disorder and diminished aggregation propensities. Our results suggest that an ancestral genetic code similar to the proposed 10-residue one is capable of encoding functionally diverse proteins but these might have existed under conditions different from today's common physiological ones. The existence of a protein functional repertoire for the investigated earlier stages which is quite distinct as it is today can be deduced from the presented results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24826911What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.