Say, in the context of finding microbial life on Mars (i.e., organisms that evolved from the start with six nucleotides, not just taking current terrestrial organisms and swapping out the nucleic acids and ribosomes).

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    But wouldn’t that be offset by the potential errors avoided in reducing the size of the genome by a third?

      • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        How so? If you have a certain probability of an erroneous match on each base pair, the probability of a successful transcription of a gene is just a binomial probability depending on the length of the gene and the probability of error on each base pair. If you reduce the length of the gene, you reduce the total probability of error.

        • verdi@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Not all base pairs contribute equally to the result given the code is degenerate, by decreasing the codon size you’re increasing the error probability regardless of gene size by reducing degeneracy. Since proteins would still functionally have the same number of aminoacids but now the signal to noise ratio of transcription would have a greater per aminoacid effect.

          • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            the code is degenerate

            I’m no biologist (I’ve only had some basic biochemistry), could you elaborate on this? As far as I can recall, each codon encodes a specific amino acid, which means that a single base pair being mistranscripted leads to the wrong amino acid, potentially breaking the protein.

            the signal to noise ratio of transcription would have a greater per amino acid effect

            Not sure I get what you mean here either? The difference is in whether each base(-pair) encodes a binary or a ternary bit. Lossless compression redundant data (i.e. what you do when moving from a binary to ternary format) doesn’t change the signal-to-noise ratio.

            • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              each codon encodes a specific amino acid

              There are 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 possible codons, but only 20(-ish) amino acids. This leaves quite a few spares for some built-in redundancy.

              For example, UCU, UCC, UCA, and UCG all code for Serine. The third letter can mutate or be mistranscribed, and still produce an identical protein.