Multiple independent genetic code reassignments of the UAG stop codon in phyllopharyngean ciliates

Jamie McGowan; Thomas A Richards; Neil Hall; David Swarbreck

doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1011512

. 2024 Dec 17;20(12):e1011512. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011512

Multiple independent genetic code reassignments of the UAG stop codon in phyllopharyngean ciliates

Jamie McGowan ^1,^*, Thomas A Richards ², Neil Hall ^1,³, David Swarbreck ^1,^*

Editor: Laurent Duret⁴

PMCID: PMC11687900 PMID: 39689125

Abstract

The translation of nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences, governed by the genetic code, is one of the most conserved features of molecular biology. The standard genetic code, which uses 61 sense codons to encode one of the 20 standard amino acids and 3 stop codons (UAA, UAG, and UGA) to terminate translation, is used by most extant organisms. The protistan phylum Ciliophora (the ’ciliates’) are the most prominent exception to this norm, exhibiting the grfeatest diversity of nuclear genetic code variants and evidence of repeated changes in the code. In this study, we report the discovery of multiple independent genetic code changes within the Phyllopharyngea class of ciliates. By mining publicly available ciliate genome datasets, we discovered that three ciliate species from the TARA Oceans eukaryotic metagenome dataset use the UAG codon to putatively encode leucine. We identified novel suppressor tRNA genes in two of these genomes which are predicted to decode the reassigned UAG codon to leucine. Phylogenomics analysis revealed that these three uncultivated taxa form a monophyletic lineage within the Phyllopharyngea class. Expanding our analysis by reassembling published phyllopharyngean genome datasets led to the discovery that the UAG codon had also been reassigned to putatively code for glutamine in Hartmannula sinica and Trochilia petrani. Phylogenomics analysis suggests that this occurred via two independent genetic code change events. These data demonstrate that the reassigned UAG codons have widespread usage as sense codons within the phyllopharyngean ciliates. Furthermore, we show that the function of UAA is firmly fixed as the preferred stop codon. These findings shed light on the evolvability of the genetic code in understudied microbial eukaryotes.

Author summary

The genetic code dictates the translation of nucleotide sequences into amino acids. It is one of the most conserved features of molecular biology. Most organisms use the “standard genetic code”, where 61 codons encode amino acids and three stop codons (UAA, UAG, and UGA) signal translation termination. Ciliates–microbial single-celled eukaryotes–are the most prominent exception, with multiple lineages exhibiting variant genetic codes in which one or more stop codons have been reassigned to function as sense codons. In this study, we report novel genetic code changes in poorly studied ciliates. By analysing marine metagenomic data from the TARA Oceans Project, we identified an uncultivated lineage of ciliates from the Phyllopharyngea class that uses the UAG codon to encode leucine. Extending our analysis to include other genomes from the Phyllopharyngea class, we identified further changes in Hartmannula sinica and Trochilia petrani where the UAG codon had been reassigned to encode glutamine. Phylogenomics analysis suggests that three lineages within Phyllopharyngea independently reassigned the codon UAG to encode an amino acid. These findings expand our understanding of genetic code evolution and highlight the remarkable diversity of genetic codes employed by ciliates.

Introduction

Ciliates are a diverse phylum of single-celled eukaryotes (protists) characterised by their unusual genome biology. Interestingly, ciliate species exhibit the greatest diversity of variant nuclear genetic codes, with several ciliate lineages possessing genetic codes that deviate from the standard genetic code. The standard genetic code uses three stop codons (UAA, UAG, and UGA) to terminate translation and 61 sense codons to encode an amino acid [1]. Once thought to be universal as it is used by most extant organisms, the standard genetic code is one of the most conserved features of molecular biology, emerging prior to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) [2].

All reported genetic code changes in ciliates involve the reassignment of one or more stop codons to encode an amino acid. The most common variant genetic code in ciliates (and eukaryotes in general) involves the reassignment of both the UAA and UAG (i.e., UAR) codons to encode glutamine, as observed in several lineages of ciliates, including the model ciliate species Tetrahymena thermophila and Oxytricha trifallax [3]. In comparison, the UAR codons are reassigned to glutamic acid in the peritrichs [4] and to tyrosine in the Mesodinium genus [5]. Whereas the UGA stop codon has been reassigned to cysteine in Euplotes [6] and to tryptophan in Blepharisma and Condylostentor [3,7]. In some lineages of ciliates, including Karyorelictea, Condylostoma and Plagiopyla, all three stop codons have been reassigned and can have dual meanings encoding an amino acid or terminating translation depending on their context [5,8–10]. In genomes with context dependent genetic codes, it has been demonstrated that codons with dual meanings (i.e., stop and sense) are underrepresented in proximity with the true termination codon [9].

In most reported variant genetic codes, the codons UAA and UAG have the same meaning, either they are both reassigned to code for an amino acid or they are both retained as stop codons, suggesting that evolutionary or mechanistic constraints couple the function of these two codons [11,12]. One proposed mechanism for the coupling of UAA and UAG codon meanings is wobble base pairing of suppressor tRNAs. It has been experimentally demonstrated in Tetrahymena thermophila that a suppressor tRNA with a UUA anticodon suppresses both UAA and UAG codons due to wobble base pairing [13]. Thus, if the function of the UAA stop codon was reassigned to function as a sense codon via acquisition of a tRNA-Sup(UUA), it would also likely trigger the reassignment of the UAG stop codon to the same amino acid. Conversely, if UAG were reassigned via acquisition of a tRNA-Sup(CUA), it would not be expected to trigger the reassignment of the UAA stop codon, as the CUA anticodon should specifically recognise UAG [13]. Therefore, genetic code variants where UAA and UAG codons have different meanings are particularly interesting and rare. Such genetic codes require the translational machinery to evolve to efficiently decode one as a sense codon while retaining the other as a termination codon.

In this study, we report the discovery of three independent genetic code change events within the Phyllopharyngea class of ciliates. The Phyllopharyngea class is relatively understudied compared to other ciliate groups and includes taxa with diverse morphologies and lifestyles, including free-living species and symbiotic species [14]. They include some of the most destructive parasites of fish [15]. Mining publicly available ciliate genome sequences, we identified three uncultivated ciliate species from the TARA Oceans eukaryotic metagenome dataset [16] where the UAG stop codon has been reassigned to code for leucine. We identified novel suppressor tRNA genes with CUA anticodons in two of these genomes which are predicted to decode the reassigned UAG codon to leucine. Phylogenomic analysis revealed that these three uncultivated taxa form a monophyletic lineage within the Phyllopharyngea class. Reassembly and annotation of seven other phyllopharyngean genome sequences from previously published datasets [17,18] revealed that Hartmannula sinica and Trochilia petrani have also undergone genetic code reassignments where UAG has been reassigned to encode glutamine. The other five phyllopharyngean species use the standard genetic code. Phylogenomic analysis infer that the reassignment of the UAG stop codon to encode glutamine has evolved independently twice within the Phyllopharyngea lineage. Thus, Phyllopharyngea contains a mix of species that use the standard and variant genetic codes, with at least three independent genetic code change events. The reassigned UAG codon demonstrates widespread usage in the predicted proteomes as a sense codon in all five species showing reassignment, suggesting that its function is fixed as a sense codon. Furthermore, these data demonstrate that UAA is ubiquitously used as the preferred stop codon in these taxa and is therefore unlikely to later be reassigned as a sense codon. These findings reveal further divergences between the function of the UAA and UAG codons signifying repeat breaking of the proposed mechanistic constraints linking the function of UAA and UAG codons.

Results

Reassignment of the UAG stop codon to leucine in an uncultivated lineage of ciliates

To investigate the evolution of the genetic code in uncultivated ciliates, we mined eukaryotic metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from the TARA Oceans project [16]. This is a dataset of manually curated genome assemblies. 30 MAGs from this dataset were classified as being ciliates, which we analysed in this study. Two complementary tools were initially used to predict the genetic code of each genome assembly–Codetta and PhyloFisher [19,20]. Codetta predicts the meaning of each codon by aligning hidden Markov models from the Pfam database against a six-frame translation of a query genome assembly. The “genetic_code_examiner” utility from PhyloFisher predicts the genetic code by identifying and counting codons that correspond to highly conserved amino acid sites in a database of orthologous proteins.

This analysis revealed a novel genetic code change in ciliates. Three of the TARA Oceans ciliate MAGs were predicted to have reassigned the meaning of the UAG codon to encode leucine–TARA_ARC_108_MAG_00274, TARA_ARC_108_MAG_00306, and TARA_SOC_28_MAG_00066. We will refer to these as ARC_274, ARC_306, and SOC_66, respectively hereafter. Two of these MAGs are from the Arctic Ocean (ARC_274 and ARC_306), and the other MAG is from the Southern Ocean (SOC_66) [16]. ARC_306 (33.6 Mb; 77.8% BUSCO completeness) and SOC_66 (21.3 Mb; 49.8% BUSCO completeness) both have reasonable estimated genome completeness (S1 Table). The third MAG ARC_274 has low completeness (11 Mb; 12.9% BUSCO completeness) which is reflected by its smaller assembly size (S1 Table). Codetta identified 1011, 1898, and 2583 UAGs codons with a Pfam alignment (S2 Table) in ARC_274, ARC_306, and SOC_66, respectively, and predicted that all three MAGs translate UAG to leucine with a log decoding probability of zero (S1 Fig). The number of UAG codons with an alignment was within the range of other sense codons (S2 Table). From the PhyloFisher dataset of 240 eukaryotic orthologs, PhyloFisher identified 8, 12, and 44 internal UAGs codons in ARC_274, ARC_306, and SOC_66, respectively, which correspond to positions where leucine is highly conserved (> 70% conservation) (S2 Fig). This is a very strict analysis as it only considers amino acid positions that are highly conserved across diverse and distantly related lineages of eukaryotes, with no closely related relatives to the taxa from this study. To expand this analysis further, we carried out our own manual analysis employing a similar approach. We annotated each MAG by training a specific Augustus model for each genome (see details below). Using these annotations and a set of ciliate proteomes (S1 Table), we generated a set of ciliate orthogroups using OrthoFinder and identified in-frame UAG codons that correspond to highly conserved (≥ 70% identity) amino acid sites and recorded the most numerous amino acid at these sites. This analysis yielded the same predictions as PhyloFisher but with greater support using our ciliate-specific dataset. 1131, 1974, and 2431 in-frame UAG codons that correspond to highly conserved amino acid sites were identified in ARC_274, ARC_306, and SOC_66, respectively, of which 80.9%, 82.8%, and 87.7% corresponded to positions where leucine is highly conserved (Fig 1). This genetic code variant (UAG translated to leucine) is represented by translation table 16 and named the “Chlorophycean Mitochondrial Code” in the NCBI database of genetic codes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi).

Fig 1 — The genetic code of each species was predicted by identifying in-frame UAG codons that occur at highly conserved (≥ 70% identity) amino acid positions in ciliate orthogroups. Each sequence logo represents the frequency of the most numerous amino acids at these highly conserved positions for each species. Numbers represent the number of codons analysed.

To investigate if UAG potentially has a dual context dependent meaning (i.e., both sense and stop depending on context), we aligned reference proteins from the Tetrahymena thermophila proteome against each genome assembly using miniprot and identified alignments where the C-terminus of query proteins aligned to the genome and checked if that position in the genome corresponded to a stop codon. This approach is independent of our genome annotation. When translation table 1 was used (i.e., treating UAA, UAG, and UGA as stop codons), there was a clear difference between taxa that use the standard genetic code and the TARA MAGs with reassigned codes (S3 Table). In the TARA MAGs, 92.6% - 96% of alignments corresponded to UAA stop codons in the genome. Only 1–4 alignments corresponded to UAG stop codons, which was comparable to the number that correspond to other sense codons (S3 Table). When translation table 16 was used for miniprot alignment (i.e., treating UAA and UGA as stop codons and UAG as leucine), the number of alignments where the C-terminus of query proteins aligned increased. This suggests that it is unlikely that UAG is also used as a stop codon. Furthermore, we investigated if the frequency of in-frame UAG codons depleted in proximity with the annotated stop codon in genes and found that this was not the case (S3 Fig). The distribution of UAG codons across the gene body showed a frequency pattern similar to that of synonymous leucine codons (S3 Fig). Thus, there is no evidence to suggest that UAG has a dual context dependent meaning.

An example multiple sequence alignment of the DRG2 protein (developmentally-regulated GTP-binding protein 2) is shown in Fig 2 with ciliate sequences aligned against orthologs from diverse eukaryotic species. The ARC_274 sequence contains three internal UAG codons which correspond to positions where leucine is highly conserved in the other eukaryotic sequences (Fig 2). The ARC_306 sequence contains a single internal UAG codon corresponding to leucine and the SOC_66 sequence contains three internal UAG codons corresponding to leucine (and one to isoleucine) (Fig 2).

A challenge with metagenome binning is that ribosomal rRNA genes are typically missing from MAGs, due to technical limitations, which is the case here making detailed taxonomic identification difficult. Instead, we relied upon the alpha-tubulin protein as a phylogenetic marker. An alpha-tubulin protein was recovered from just one of the MAGs (ARC_306). Phylogenetic analysis placed the ARC_306 sequence within a clade of sequences from the Phyllopharyngea class (S4 Fig) with high support (91% ultrafast bootstrap support). We extend this phylogenetic analysis below using phylogenomic approaches.

Reassignment of the UAG stop codon to glutamine in Hartmannula sinica and Trochilia petrani

To expand our dataset further, we retrieved previously published genome sequencing reads from members of the Phyllopharyngea class [17,18] and generated de novo genome assemblies for seven species–Chilodochona sp., Chilodonella uncinata, Chilodontopsis depressa, Dysteria derouxi, Hartmannula sinica, Trithigmostoma cucullulus, and Trochilia petrani (S1 Table). We cleaned up each assembly to remove sequences from contaminants and predicted their genetic codes using the same methods as above. Chilodochona sp., Chilodonella uncinata, Chilodontopsis depressa, Dysteria derouxi, and Trithigmostoma cucullulus were all predicted to use the standard genetic code with both methods (S1 Fig). Surprisingly, however, we predicted that H. sinica and T. petrani use a variant genetic code, where the UAG stop codon has been reassigned to code for glutamine. Codetta identified 1489 and 350 UAG codons with a Pfam alignment (S2 Table) in H. sinica and T. petrani, respectively, and predicted that they translate UAG to glutamine with a log decoding probability of zero (S1 Fig). The number of UAG codons with an alignment was within the range of other sense codons (S2 Table). This prediction was supported by PhyloFisher which identified 30 and 7 internal UAG codons in H. sinica and T. petrani, respectively, which correspond to positions where glutamine is highly conserved (S2 Fig). Furthermore, our manual analysis of predicted gene models and ciliate orthogroups identified 363 and 130 internal UAG codons in H. sinica and T. petrani, respectively, of which 58.1% and 70.0% correspond to positions where glutamine is highly conserved (Fig 1). This genetic code variant (UAG translated to glutamine) is represented by translation table 15 and named the “Blepharisma Nuclear Code” in the NCBI database of genetic codes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Utils/wprintgc.cgi). We note that this name is incorrect and misleading given that Blepharisma do not use this genetic code variant.

As above, we investigated whether UAG has a dual context dependent meaning in H. sinica and T. petrani by aligning Tetrahymena thermophila reference proteins against their genome assemblies with miniprot. When translation table 1 was used, 93.5% - 100% of C-terminal protein alignments corresponded to the UAA stop codon (S3 Table). 0 alignments in T. petrani and only 5 in H. sinica corresponded to UAG codons, which was comparable to the number corresponding to other sense codons. When translation table 15 was used (i.e., treating UAA and UGA as stop codons and UAG as glutamine), the number of alignments where then end of the query protein aligned increased. Furthermore, the distribution of UAG codons across the gene body showed a frequency pattern similar to that of synonymous glutamine codons (S3 Fig). Thus, it is unlikely that UAG has a dual context dependent meaning in H. sinica and T. petrani.

The partial T. petrani DRG2 sequence contains a single internal UAG codon corresponding to glutamine and the H. sinica DRG2 sequence contains a single internal UAG codon corresponding to glutamine (and one to glutamate) (Fig 2). The five species with the standard genetic code had high BUSCO completeness (72.5% to 82.5%) but the two species with reassigned UAG codons had low completeness (30.4% for H. sinica and 8.8% for T. petrani) (S1 Table).

Phylogenomics reveals three independent genetic codon reassignments in Phyllopharyngea

To better understand the evolutionary relationships of the three uncultivated TARA MAGs, and to characterise the order of events surrounding the novel genetic code reassignments, we carried out a phylogenomics analysis focused on members of the CONthreeP lineage of ciliates–Colpodea, Oligohymenophorea, Nassophorea, Phyllopharyngea, Plagiopylea, and Prostomatea (which is not represented here). A concatenated alignment of 115 BUSCO proteins (53,648 amino acid sites after alignment trimming) from 29 ciliate species was constructed and used for phylogenomic analyses. Phylogenomic reconstruction was performed using maximum-likelihood (ML) and Bayesian approaches. The ML analysis was conducted using IQ-TREE under the LG+C20+F+G+PMSF model with 100 non-parametric bootstraps, while the Bayesian analysis was conducted using PhyloBayes MPI under the CAT-GTR model. Both methods yielded robust phylogenies with identical topologies and all branches had full statistical support from both methods (i.e., ML bootstrap support of 100% and a Bayesian posterior probability of 1) (Fig 3). Our phylogeny is in agreement with previous phylogenies based on small subunit ribosomal rRNA genes [18,21].

The three TARA MAGs formed a monophyletic lineage within Phyllopharyngea (Fig 3), confirming that they belong to the Phyllopharyngea class. This suggests that the reassignment of UAG to leucine occurred once in an ancestor of this lineage. ARC_306 grouped as sister to SOC_66, to the exclusion of ARC_274, despite geographical differences. T. petrani and Dysteria derouxi were grouped as sister lineages, as were H. sinica and Chilodochona sp. (Fig 3). This suggests that reassignment of UAG to glutamine independently evolved twice within the sampled Phyllopharyngea species and that these genetic code changes were more recent than the reassignment of UAG to leucine in the TARA MAGs lineage. The phylogenetic distribution of species that use the standard genetic code suggests that the most recent common ancestor of Phyllopharyngea used the standard genetic code (Fig 3).

Novel suppressor tRNAs for UAG

Translation of the UAG codon to an amino acid requires a tRNA gene that can decode the UAG codon. We annotated tRNA genes in our dataset using tRNAscan-SE [22]. A single suppressor tRNA gene was identified in the ARC_274 MAG with a CUA anticodon which is predicted with high confidence to function as a leucine tRNA (S5A Fig). This tRNA gene is located on a 12.5 kb contig, capped at both ends with ciliate telomeric repeats (CCCCAAA/GGGGTTT). Two suppressor tRNA genes were identified in the ARC_306 MAG with CUA anticodons that were predicted with high confidence to function as leucine tRNAs (S5A Fig). Both of these suppressor tRNA genes are located on the same 13.5 kb contig within 100 bp of each other but are not identical (75% identical) (S5B Fig). This contig has three gene models with best BLAST hits to ciliate sequences. One of the ARC_306 suppressor tRNAs is 94% identical to the suppressor tRNA from ARC_274, with only five nucleotide differences between the two sequences (one substitution in the anticodon loop and four substitutions in the variable loop) (S5A and S5B Fig). We compared the suppressor tRNA gene sequences against other phyllopharyngean tRNA sequences in our dataset which revealed that they are most similar in sequence to leucine tRNAs with CAA or TAA anticodons (S5B Fig). This suggests that the novel suppressor tRNAs evolved from a canonical leucine tRNA. Furthermore, the suppressor tRNA sequences contain many of the known identity elements for eukaryotic leucine tRNAs [23], including the discriminator base A₇₂, the positive identity determinants A₄-U₆₉ (not in the second ARC_306 tRNA-Sup which has U₄-A₆₉), G₅-C₆₈, a large variable region, and the invariant nucleotides G₁₈, G₁₉, A₂₁, U₃₃, U₅₄, U₅₅, C₅₆, and A₅₈ (S5 Fig), suggesting that they are likely to be recognised by leucyl-tRNA synthetases. We did not detect suppressor tRNA genes in the SOC_66 MAG, H. sinica, or T. petrani, however our analysis is likely limited by the low completeness of these assemblies. As expected, suppressor tRNA genes were not detected in the five genomes that use the standard genetic code.

Codon usage of UAA, UAG, and UGA

To better understand the events preceding a genetic code change event, we annotated all 10 phyllopharyngean genomes and investigated usage of the standard stop codons and the reassigned UAG codon following a genetic code change. We restricted this analysis to exclude partial gene models by only considering genes with both a predicted start and stop codon. UAA is the most used stop codon and UGA is the least used stop codon in all species in our dataset (Fig 4). Trithigmostoma cucullulus is a clear outlier in terms of codon usage with 58.8% of genes using UAA, 30.3% using UAG, and 10.9% using UGA as stop codons (Fig 4), which is reflected by the higher GC content of its genome (Fig 3 and S1 Table). UAA is used as stop codon in 78.3%– 86% of genes in the other species that use the standard genetic code (Fig 4). In the species that have retained UAG as a stop codon (excluding Trithigmostoma), UAG is used as stop codons for 10.5%– 16.2% of genes (Fig 4). This suggests that UAG usage was low but non-negligible prior to the genetic code change events. UGA is used less frequently in these species, with only 3.1%– 9.4% of genes using UGA as a stop codon (Fig 4).

Usage of UAA as a stop codon is increased to 96.1%– 98.3% of genes in the TARA MAGs following their genetic code reassignment (Fig 4). Fewer than 3.9% of genes use UGA as a stop codon in these MAGs. UAA usage is also increased in H. sinica compared to its closest relative (91.9% vs 83.5%) (Fig 4). Likewise, UGA usage increased in H. sinica (8.1% vs 3.6%) and T. petrani compared to their closest relatives (13.1% vs 3.1%) following their genetic code reassignments (Fig 4).

In T. petrani and H. sinica, we compared relative codon usage of the reassigned UAG codon compared to the two standard glutamine codons (CAA and CAG). The reassigned UAG codon is the second most used glutamine codon in T. petrani (31.8%) but the least used in H.sinica (18.5%) (Fig 4). 83.7% and 78.2% of genes in T. petrani and H. sinica contain at least one internal in-frame UAG codon, showing that the reassigned codon is widely used in both species. In the three TARA MAGs, we compared usage of the reassigned UAG codon compared to the six standard leucine codons (CUA, CUC, CUG, CUU, UUA, and UUG). Relative codon usage of the reassigned UAG codon ranges from 6.5% to 10% in the TARA MAGs (Fig 4). 81.3% to 91.1% of genes contain at least one internal UAG codon in these MAGs, showing that usage of the reassigned codon is also widespread in these genomes.

Discussion

Here we report the identification of three novel genetic code changes in ciliates. We discovered that three uncultivated ciliates sequenced from eukaryotic metagenomes by the TARA Oceans Project [16] use a variant genetic code where the UAG stop codon has been reassigned to encode leucine (Fig 1). Phylogenomic analysis revealed that the uncultivated ciliates belong to the Phyllopharyngea class. Reassembly and analysis of seven other phyllopharyngean genomes led to the discovery of another two genetic code changes in this lineage–reassignment of UAG to glutamine in both H. sinica and T. petrani (Fig 1). In contrast to recent reports that dual context dependent or “bifunctional” stop codons are prevalent in ciliates[7], we found no evidence to suggest that UAG has a dual context dependent meaning in the Phyllopharyngea class of ciliates.

It is important to note that the genetic code changes reported herein, and indeed most published reports of genetic code changes, are predictions based on genomic data. While these are high-confidence predictions with multiple lines of evidence including large numbers of internal in-frame UAG codons that occur at conserved leucine/glutamine positions and the identification of predicted cognate suppressor tRNA genes in two genome assemblies, confirmation that a codon is translated to a particular amino acid requires proteome sequencing (e.g., mass spectrometry) and comparison with corresponding coding sequences.

Given the complex phylogenetic distribution of the standard and variant genetic codes in the ciliate lineage [10], there are conflicting interpretations surrounding the order of events. Either (1) independent genetic code changes occurred in multiple ciliate lineages, including different lineages convergently evolving the same genetic code variant, or (2) stop codon reassignments evolved in more ancient lineages of ciliates giving rise to the taxa with variant genetic codes, which were followed by reversions to the original function as stop codons in the taxa that use the standard genetic code. A recent study proposed that ancestral ciliates reassigned all three stop codons as sense codons, followed by one or more of the reassigned codons reverting to functioning as stop codons giving rise to the different types of genetic codes observed in ciliates (i.e., the standard genetic code or genetic codes with one or more reassigned stop codons) [7]. In our study, we focus just on the Phyllopharyngea class of ciliates. From these phylogenomic analyses, the most parsimonious explanation for the distribution of genetic codes within sampled phyllopharyngean ciliates is that the most recent common ancestor of Phyllopharyngea used the standard genetic code (Fig 3). This lineage then underwent at least three independent genetic code change events based on sampled species: (1) reassignment of UAG to leucine in the lineage of uncultivated TARA MAGs, (2) reassignment of UAG to glutamine in the lineage giving rise to H. sinica, and (3) reassignment of UAG to glutamine in the lineage giving rise to T. petrani (Fig 3). Given the widespread usage of the reassigned UAG codons in Phyllopharyngea, with 78.2% to 91.1% of genes using a least one UAG codon, it is unlikely that UAG will revert to functioning as a stop codon. If it were to revert, it would result in large-scale protein truncation due to the presence of internal in-frame UAG codons in most genes unless there were genome-wide substitutions of UAG to another sense codon (e.g., due to genomic GC content shifting). Thus, we propose that it is unlikely that a reversion could so readily occur once a stop codon has been reassigned to a sense codon.

Several hypotheses have been proposed to model the processes surrounding genetic code changes. Under the “codon capture” hypothesis, a codon is driven to extinction by mutational biases (e.g., low GC-content) followed by loss of the corresponding tRNA (or loss of function in release factors in the case of stop codons) [24]. This unused codon could later be captured by a noncognate tRNA and reappear in the genome, resulting in a change to the genetic code. The “ambiguous intermediate” hypothesis proposes that genetic code changes involve an intermediate stage where a codon is ambiguously translated via competing tRNAs charged with different amino acids [25]. In the scenario of a stop codon being reassigned, this would involve a suppressor tRNA competing with a release factor protein. The “unassigned codon” hypothesis [26] and the “tRNA loss driven codon reassignment” [27] hypothesis propose that the genetic code change is preceded by loss of function or reduced efficiency of a tRNA or release factor, resulting in an unassigned or inefficient codon that can be captured by another tRNA gene.

It is still unclear what has driven ciliates to evolve so many genetic code variants and why there is differential retention of UAA/UAG/UGA as stop codons. Our analysis of codon usage shows that usage of UAG as a stop codon is low but non-negligible (mean 16.2% of genes) in phyllopharyngean species that use the standard genetic code (Fig 4). UGA is the least used stop codon in all taxa in our dataset (1.7% - 13.1% of genes) (Fig 4). Thus, it is unclear why UGA was retained as a stop codon but not UAG. Furthermore, the UGA codon is known to be the least robust and most prone to translational readthrough [28] confounding the situation further. Likewise, the low GC content that is a common characteristic of extant ciliate genomes does not explain their propensity to evolve non-standard genetic codes. GC content varies considerably within Phyllopharyngea (27.4% to 53.6%) (Fig 3). Chilodontopsis depressa has a lower GC content (28%) than most of the other species in our dataset but uses the standard genetic code and has similar stop codon usage as other species with higher GC content (Figs 3 and 4).

The evolution of the UAA and UAG codons are thought to be coupled as they virtually always have the same meaning–either they both function as stop codons or they are both reassigned to code for the same amino acid [11]. The first reported cases where UAA and UAG have different meanings in a nuclear genome were reported in two unrelated taxa–an uncultured rhizarian where UAG was reassigned to code for leucine and in the fornicate Iotanema spirale where UAG was recoded for glutamine [12]. Another variant was reported in green algal genus Scotinosphaera where UAG encodes serine but UAA is retained as a stop codon [29]. Recently, we reported a novel genetic code variant in an uncultured ciliate, where the UAA and UAG codons were reassigned to code for two different amino acids (lysine and glutamic acid, respectively), the first reported case where UAA and UAG encode two different amino acids [10]. In this study, we report another deviation from the trend of UAA and UAG having the same function. We show that UAG has been reassigned to function as a sense codon, but UAA was retained as a stop codon in five of the studied genomes. Furthermore, we show that it is unlikely that the UAA stop codon could later be reassigned to an amino acid in these lineages, as seen in most other genetic code variants, given the almost ubiquitous usage of UAA as the preferred stop codon with 86.9% to 98.3% of genes using UAA as a stop codon (Fig 4). If UAA were to be later reassigned to function as a sense codon, it would result in widespread protein elongation with proteins extending downstream to the next in-frame stop codon (i.e., UGA). Ciliates typically have very short 3’-UTRs which would somewhat limit the effect, but this would still impact almost the entire proteome. Such levels of protein elongation would likely have similar deleterious consequences as widespread translational readthrough, including issues with protein aggregation and stability, disruption to localisation signals and energetic waste [30]. Thus, the function of UAA as the preferred stop codon is likely fixed in these taxa. Had the UAA codon been reassigned initially, it likely would have also triggered the UAG codon to be reassigned to encode the same amino acid given that a suppressor tRNA that decodes UAA is also expected to decode UAG due to wobble base pairing of the UUA anticodon [13]. This is not the case when UAG is reassigned on its own, as a suppressor tRNA with an anticodon complementary to UAG (i.e., CUA anticodon) is not expected to recognise the UAA codon, allowing the UAG codon to evolve independently of UAA.

Our results highlight the evolvability of the genetic code and the tendency, not only for ciliates but also unrelated taxa, to independently evolve the same genetic code variants. Multiple lineages within Ciliophora have independently evolved the translation of UAR codons to glutamine [10,31]. Translation of UAR to glutamine is also found in the nuclear genomes of green algae from the Ulvophyceae class [32], the diplomonad Hexamita [33], the oxymonad Streblomastix strix [34], and the aphelid Amoeboaphelidium protococcarum [35]. Similarly, reassignment of the UAG stop codon (but not UAA) to leucine is reported here for the first time in ciliates but was previously reported in the nuclear genome of an uncultured rhizarian [12] and also in the mitochondrial genomes of chlorophyte algae [36,37] and in some chytridiomycete fungi [38]. Reassignment of UAG (but not UAA) to glutamine is also reported here to have evolved independently twice within sampled phyllopharyngean ciliates and was also previously reported in the distantly related ciliate Protocruzia tuzeti [7] and the fornicate Iotanema spirale [12]. These findings highlight that while the genetic code is one of the most conserved features of molecular biology, it is not quite as universal as was once thought [39]. Genetic code reassignments are relatively recent events, demonstrating that genetic code evolution is an ongoing process.

Materials and methods

Dataset assembly

Ciliate MAGs from the TARA Oceans project were downloaded from https://www.genoscope.cns.fr/tara/ [16]. The three MAGs focused on in this study are TARA_ARC_108_MAG_00274, TARA_ARC_108_MAG_00306, and TARA_SOC_28_MAG_00066. Genome sequencing reads for Chilodochona sp. (SRR9841583), Chilodontopsis depressa (SRR9841577), Dysteria derouxi (SRR9841578), Hartmannula sinica (SRR9841582), Trithigmostoma cucullulus (SRR9841579), and Trochilia petrani (SRR9841580) were downloaded from BioProject PRJNA546036 [18]. Genome sequencing reads for Chilodonella uncinata (SRR6195035) were downloaded from BioProject PRJNA413041 [17].

Genome assemblies were generated using SPAdes (v3.15.5) [40] with default settings, except single-cell (—sc) mode was enabled. Contigs shorter than 1000 bp were discarded. Assemblies were decontaminated using a combination of Tiara [41] and contig clustering based on tetranucleotide frequencies.

Genetic code prediction and genome annotation

The genetic code used by each genome was initially predicted using Codetta (v2.0) [20] and the PhyloFisher “genetic_code_examiner” utility [19]. For the five phyllopharyngean species that use the standard genetic code, an initial gene set was generated using GeneMark-EP [42], with hints generated by ProtHint from a database of 1,170,806 Alveolata proteins. These initial gene sets were filtered by selecting complete gene models (i.e., containing a start and stop codon) that had full-length alignments (alignment length ≥ 95% of both the query and subject sequence lengths) against the Alveolata protein database using Diamond in ultra-sensitive mode [43]. These filtered subsets were used as training gene sets to train an Augustus model for each species [44]. This process was repeated by incorporating the initial Augustus gene models from every other species into the protein database supplied to GeneMark-EP and to retrain Augustus and generate a final gene set for each species. For the five species that use variant genetic codes, an initial gene set was generated using the most appropriate Augustus model from above (with modified parameters such that UAG is no longer used as a stop codon), which went through a similar filtering step to select training genes to train a species-specific Augustus model for each genome.

The final gene sets were used to further interrogate the genetic code. In-frame UAG codons were translated to “X”. Orthogroups from a dataset of 19 ciliate species (including the 10 phyllopharyngean genomes) (S1 Table) were identified using OrthoFinder (v.2.5.5) [45] with the parameter “-M msa”. A multiple sequence alignment was generated for each orthogroup using MAFFT (v7.520) [46]. In-frame UAG codons that correspond to highly conserved amino acid positions (≥ 70% identity) in aligned orthogroups were identified and the most numerous amino acid at these sites were counted. The counts were visualised as a sequence logo using WebLogo (v3.7.12) [47]. This genetic code analysis and subsequent analyses of codon usage were restricted to gene models with predicted start and stop codons (i.e., not partial gene models). tRNA genes were annotated using tRNAscan-SE (v.2.0.7) in eukaryotic search mode [22].

To investigate if UAG has a dual context dependent meaning in phyllopharyngean ciliates using a method independent of our genome annotation, we aligned reference Tetrahymena thermophila proteins against each genome assembly using miniprot (v0.13) [48] with different translation tables (1/6/15/16). Alignments were filtered to identify cases where the end of query proteins aligned to the genome and the codons at these corresponding positions were counted (S3 Table).

Phylogenetics of alpha-tubulin sequences

An alpha-tubulin gene was recovered from ARC_306 and used for phylogenetic analysis, using a dataset of alpha-tubulin sequences from a previously published phylogenetics study of ciliates [49]. Three apicomplexan sequences were included as outgroups. Sequences were aligned using MAFFT with the L-INS-I algorithm [46]. A maximum-likelihood phylogeny was constructed using IQ-Tree (v2.2.2.6) [50] under the LG+R3 model which was the best fitting model according to ModelFinder [51]. Support was assessed using 1000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates [52].

Phylogenomics

We constructed a dataset of ciliate genomes and transcriptomes for phylogenomic analyses, focusing on members of the CONthreeP lineage (Fig 3). Oxytricha trifallax, Schmidingerella taraikaensis, and Stylonychia lemnae from the Spirotrichea class were included as outgroups. A concatenated supermatrix of BUSCO proteins was generated using our BUSCO_phylogenomics pipeline (https://github.com/jamiemcg/BUSCO_phylogenomics). 115 BUSCO proteins from the Alveolata_odb10 dataset [53] were identified as complete and single copy in at least 60% of species and were included in our analysis. Each BUSCO family was individually aligned using MUSCLE (v5.1) [54]. Alignments were then trimmed using trimAl (v1.4) [55] with the “automated1” parameter and concatenated together resulting in a supermatrix alignment of 53,648 sites. Maximum-likelihood phylogenomic reconstruction was performed using IQ-TREE (v2.2.2.6) [50]. Most sequences (26/29) failed IQ-TREE’s chi-square test for homogeneity of character composition, therefore we carried out maximum-likelihood analysis under the C20 protein mixture model (LG+C20+F+G model) with PMSF approximation [56] and 100 non-parametric bootstraps, using a guide tree from FastTree (v2.1.11) [57]. Bayesian analyses were also conducted using PhyloBayes MPI (v1.8) [58] under the CAT-GTR model. Two independent Markov chain Monte Carlo chains were run for approximately 10,000 generations. Convergence was assessed using bpcomp and tracecomp, with a burn-in of 20%. Phylogenies were visualised and annotated using iTOL [59].

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Genetic code prediction of the UAG codon using Codetta.

The table shows log decoding probabilities of UAG for each amino acid. “?” indicates that there were insufficient alignments to infer an amino acid meaning (which is the expected behaviour for stop codons).

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s001.pdf^{(65.7KB, pdf)}

S2 Fig. Genetic code prediction of the UAG codon using the genetic_code_examiner utility from PhyloFisher.

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s002.pdf^{(167.7KB, pdf)}

S3 Fig. Frequency of in-frame UAG codons across gene body compared to standard leucine and glutamine codons.

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s003.pdf^{(726.2KB, pdf)}

S4 Fig. Maximum-likelihood phylogeny of 104 ciliate alpha-tubulin sequences constructed using IQ-TREE under the LG+R3 model.

Numbers represent support from 1000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates. Three apicomplexan sequences were included as an outgroup.

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s004.pdf^{(55.4KB, pdf)}

S5 Fig

(A) Three suppressor tRNA genes from two TARA Oceans ciliate MAGs (ARC_274 and ARC_306) with CUA anticodons that are predicted to function as leucine tRNAs. (B) Multiple sequence alignment of the three suppressor tRNA genes with representative canonical leucine tRNAs with CAA and TAA anticodons.

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s005.pdf^{(131.4KB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Summary of the genome assembly and annotation statistics and the species included in the OrthoFinder analysis.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011512.s006.xlsx^{(12.4KB, xlsx)}

S2 Table. Number of Pfam alignments per codon from the Codetta analysis.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011512.s007.xlsx^{(14.4KB, xlsx)}

S3 Table. Counts of miniprot alignments of reference proteins against each genome assembly corresponding to stop codons.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011512.s008.xlsx^{(11.9KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the work delivered via the Research Computing Group at EI who manage and deliver High Performance Computing at EI.

Data Availability

Supporting data have been deposited on Zenodo (10.5281/zenodo.12744466).

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust Darwin Tree of Life Awards (218328 and 226458 to NH and TAR) and by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), part of UK Research and Innovation, through the Core Capability Grant (BB/CCG2220/1 to NH) at the Earlham Institute; the Earlham Institute Strategic Programme Grant Decoding Biodiversity (BBX011089/1 to NH and DS) and its constituent work packages (BBS/E/ER/230002A and BBS/E/ER/230002B to NH and DS). TAR is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship (URF/R/191005 to TAR). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Crick FHC. The origin of the genetic code. Journal of Molecular Biology. 1968;38: 367–379. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(68)90392-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Keeling PJ. Genomics: Evolution of the Genetic Code. Current Biology. 2016;26: R851–R853. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Lozupone CA, Knight RD, Landweber LF. The molecular basis of nuclear genetic code change in ciliates. Current Biology. 2001;11: 65–74. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00028-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Wang C, Gao Y, Lu B, Chi Y, Zhang T, El-Serehy HA, et al. Large-scale phylogenomic analysis provides new insights into the phylogeny of the class Oligohymenophorea (Protista, Ciliophora) with establishment of a new subclass Urocentria nov. subcl. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2021;159: 107112. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Heaphy SM, Mariotti M, Gladyshev VN, Atkins JF, Baranov PV. Novel Ciliate Genetic Code Variants Including the Reassignment of All Three Stop Codons to Sense Codons in Condylostoma magnum. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33: 2885–2889. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Meyer F, Schmidt HJ, Plümper E, Hasilik A, Mersmann G, Meyer HE, et al. UGA is translated as cysteine in pheromone 3 of Euplotes octocarinatus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88: 3758–3761. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.9.3758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Chen W, Geng Y, Zhang B, Yan Y, Zhao F, Miao M. Stop or Not: Genome-Wide Profiling of Reassigned Stop Codons in Ciliates. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2023;40: msad064. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msad064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Swart EC, Serra V, Petroni G, Nowacki M. Genetic Codes with No Dedicated Stop Codon: Context-Dependent Translation Termination. Cell. 2016;166: 691–702. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Seah BKB, Singh A, Swart EC. Karyorelict ciliates use an ambiguous genetic code with context-dependent stop/sense codons. Peer Community Journal. 2022;2. doi: 10.24072/pcjournal.141 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.McGowan J, Kilias ES, Alacid E, Lipscombe J, Jenkins BH, Gharbi K, et al. Identification of a non-canonical ciliate nuclear genetic code where UAA and UAG code for different amino acids. PLoS Genet. 2023;19: e1010913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Kollmar M, Mühlhausen S. Nuclear codon reassignments in the genomics era and mechanisms behind their evolution. BioEssays. 2017;39: 1600221. doi: 10.1002/bies.201600221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Pánek T, Žihala D, Sokol M, Derelle R, Klimeš V, Hradilová M, et al. Nuclear genetic codes with a different meaning of the UAG and the UAA codon. BMC Biol. 2017;15: 8. doi: 10.1186/s12915-017-0353-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Hanyu N, Kuchino Y, Nishimura S, Beier H. Dramatic events in ciliate evolution: alteration of UAA and UAG termination codons to glutamine codons due to anticodon mutations in two Tetrahymena tRNAs ^Gln. The EMBO Journal. 1986;5: 1307–1311. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04360.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Lynn DH, editor. The Ciliated Protozoa. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2010. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8239-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Bastos Gomes G, Jerry DR, Miller TL, Hutson KS. Current status of parasitic ciliates Chilodonella spp. (Phyllopharyngea: Chilodonellidae) in freshwater fish aquaculture. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2017;40: 703–715. doi: 10.1111/jfd.12523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Delmont TO, Gaia M, Hinsinger DD, Frémont P, Vanni C, Fernandez-Guerra A, et al. Functional repertoire convergence of distantly related eukaryotic plankton lineages abundant in the sunlit ocean. Cell Genomics. 2022;2: 100123. doi: 10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Maurer-Alcalá XX, Knight R, Katz LA. Exploration of the Germline Genome of the Ciliate Chilodonella uncinata through Single-Cell Omics (Transcriptomics and Genomics). mBio. 2018;9: 10.1128/mbio.01836-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01836-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Pan B, Chen X, Hou L, Zhang Q, Qu Z, Warren A, et al. Comparative Genomics Analysis of Ciliates Provides Insights on the Evolutionary History Within “Nassophorea–Synhymenia–Phyllopharyngea” Assemblage. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10: 02819. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Tice AK, Žihala D, Pánek T, Jones RE, Salomaki ED, Nenarokov S, et al. PhyloFisher: A phylogenomic package for resolving eukaryotic relationships. PLoS Biol. 2021;19: e3001365. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Shulgina Y, Eddy SR. Codetta: predicting the genetic code from nucleotide sequence. Bioinformatics. 2023;39: btac802. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Gao S, Huang J, Li J, Song W. Molecular Phylogeny of the Cyrtophorid Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora, Phyllopharyngea). PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e33198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Chan PP, Lin BY, Mak AJ, Lowe TM. tRNAscan-SE 2.0: improved detection and functional classification of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2021;49: 9077–9096. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Giegé R, Eriani G. The tRNA identity landscape for aminoacylation and beyond. Nucleic Acids Research. 2023;51: 1528–1570. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Osawa S, Jukes TH. Codon reassignment (codon capture) in evolution. J Mol Evol. 1989;28: 271–278. doi: 10.1007/BF02103422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Schultz DW, Yarus M. Transfer RNA Mutation and the Malleability of the Genetic Code. Journal of Molecular Biology. 1994;235: 1377–1380. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1994.1094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Sengupta S, Higgs PG. A Unified Model of Codon Reassignment in Alternative Genetic Codes. Genetics. 2005;170: 831–840. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.037887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Mühlhausen S, Findeisen P, Plessmann U, Urlaub H, Kollmar M. A novel nuclear genetic code alteration in yeasts and the evolution of codon reassignment in eukaryotes. Genome Res. 2016;26: 945–955. doi: 10.1101/gr.200931.115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Dabrowski M, Bukowy-Bieryllo Z, Zietkiewicz E. Translational readthrough potential of natural termination codons in eucaryotes–The impact of RNA sequence. RNA Biology. 2015;12: 950–958. doi: 10.1080/15476286.2015.1068497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Li X, Hou Z, Xu C, Shi X, Yang L, Lewis LA, et al. Large Phylogenomic Data sets Reveal Deep Relationships and Trait Evolution in Chlorophyte Green Algae. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2021;13: evab101. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evab101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Ho AT, Hurst LD. Stop Codon Usage as a Window into Genome Evolution: Mutation, Selection, Biased Gene Conversion and the TAG Paradox. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2022;14: evac115. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evac115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Rotterová J, Pánek T, Salomaki ED, Kotyk M, Táborský P, Kolísko M, et al. Single cell transcriptomics reveals UAR codon reassignment in Palmarella salina (Metopida, Armophorea) and confirms Armophorida belongs to APM clade. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2024;191: 107991. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107991 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Cocquyt E, Gile GH, Leliaert F, Verbruggen H, Keeling PJ, De Clerck O. Complex phylogenetic distribution of a non-canonical genetic code in green algae. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2010;10: 327. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Keeling PJ, Doolittle WF. A non-canonical genetic code in an early diverging eukaryotic lineage. The EMBO Journal. 1996;15: 2285–2290. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00581.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Keeling PJ, Leander BS. Characterisation of a Non-canonical Genetic Code in the Oxymonad Streblomastix strix. Journal of Molecular Biology. 2003;326: 1337–1349. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00057-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Karpov SA, Mikhailov KV, Mirzaeva GS, Mirabdullaev IM, Mamkaeva KA, Titova NN, et al. Obligately Phagotrophic Aphelids Turned out to Branch with the Earliest-diverging Fungi. Protist. 2013;164: 195–205. doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2012.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Hayashi-Ishimaru Y, Ohama T, Kawatsu Y, Nakamura K, Osawa S. UAG is a sense codon in several chlorophycean mitochondria. Curr Genet. 1996;30: 29–33. doi: 10.1007/s002940050096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Noutahi E, Calderon V, Blanchette M, El-Mabrouk N, Lang BF. Rapid Genetic Code Evolution in Green Algal Mitochondrial Genomes. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2019;36: 766–783. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msz016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Laforest M-J, Roewer I, Lang BF. Mitochondrial tRNAs in the Lower Fungus Spizellomyces Punctatus tRNA Editing and UAG ‘Stop’ Codons Recognized as Leucine. Nucleic Acids Research. 1997;25: 626–632. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.3.626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Hinegardner RT, Engelberg J. Rationale for a Universal Genetic Code. Science. 1963;142: 1083–1085. doi: 10.1126/science.142.3595.1083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Prjibelski A, Antipov D, Meleshko D, Lapidus A, Korobeynikov A. Using SPAdes De Novo Assembler. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics. 2020;70: e102. doi: 10.1002/cpbi.102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Karlicki M, Antonowicz S, Karnkowska A. Tiara: deep learning-based classification system for eukaryotic sequences. Bioinformatics. 2022;38: 344–350. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Brůna T, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M. GeneMark-EP+: eukaryotic gene prediction with self-training in the space of genes and proteins. NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics. 2020;2: lqaa026. doi: 10.1093/nargab/lqaa026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Buchfink B, Reuter K, Drost H-G. Sensitive protein alignments at tree-of-life scale using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2021;18: 366–368. doi: 10.1038/s41592-021-01101-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Stanke M, Schöffmann O, Morgenstern B, Waack S. Gene prediction in eukaryotes with a generalized hidden Markov model that uses hints from external sources. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7: 62. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-62 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Emms DM, Kelly S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biology. 2019;20: 238. doi: 10.1186/s13059-019-1832-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: Improvements in Performance and Usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2013;30: 772–780. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Crooks GE, Hon G, Chandonia J-M, Brenner SE. WebLogo: A Sequence Logo Generator. Genome Res. 2004;14: 1188–1190. doi: 10.1101/gr.849004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Li H. Protein-to-genome alignment with miniprot. Bioinformatics. 2023;39: btad014. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Gao F, Warren A, Zhang Q, Gong J, Miao M, Sun P, et al. The All-Data-Based Evolutionary Hypothesis of Ciliated Protists with a Revised Classification of the Phylum Ciliophora (Eukaryota, Alveolata). Sci Rep. 2016;6: 24874. doi: 10.1038/srep24874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, von Haeseler A, et al. IQ-TREE 2: New Models and Efficient Methods for Phylogenetic Inference in the Genomic Era. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2020;37: 1530–1534. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 2017;14: 587–589. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Hoang DT, Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Vinh LS. UFBoot2: Improving the Ultrafast Bootstrap Approximation. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018;35: 518–522. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Manni M, Berkeley MR, Seppey M, Simão FA, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO Update: Novel and Streamlined Workflows along with Broader and Deeper Phylogenetic Coverage for Scoring of Eukaryotic, Prokaryotic, and Viral Genomes. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2021;38: 4647–4654. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Edgar RC. Muscle5: High-accuracy alignment ensembles enable unbiased assessments of sequence homology and phylogeny. Nat Commun. 2022;13: 6968. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34630-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Capella-Gutierrez S, Silla-Martinez JM, Gabaldon T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics. 2009;25: 1972–1973. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Wang H-C, Minh BQ, Susko E, Roger AJ. Modeling Site Heterogeneity with Posterior Mean Site Frequency Profiles Accelerates Accurate Phylogenomic Estimation. Systematic Biology. 2018;67: 216–235. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syx068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 –Approximately Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments. PLoS ONE. 2010;5: e9490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Lartillot N, Rodrigue N, Stubbs D, Richer J. PhyloBayes MPI: Phylogenetic Reconstruction with Infinite Mixtures of Profiles in a Parallel Environment. Systematic Biology. 2013;62: 611–615. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syt022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Research. 2021;49: W293–W296. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS Genet. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011512.r001

Decision Letter 0

Laurent Duret, Eva H Stukenbrock

4 Nov 2024

PGENETICS-D-24-00945Multiple Independent Genetic Code Reassignments of the UAG Stop Codon in Phyllopharyngean CiliatesPLOS Genetics Dear Dr. McGowan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Genetics. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Genetics's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Dec 04 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosgenetics@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Laurent DuretGuest EditorPLOS Genetics Eva StukenbrockSection EditorPLOS Genetics Aimée DudleyEditor-in-ChiefPLOS Genetics Anne GorielyEditor-in-ChiefPLOS Genetics Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Jamie McGowan,

Thank you for your patience while your manuscript "Multiple Independent Genetic Code Reassignments of the UAG Stop Codon in Phyllopharyngean Ciliates" was peer-reviewed at PLOS Genetics. It has now been evaluated by three independent reviewers.

As you will see, the three reviewers are very positive and consider that your findings are an important contribution to the field of genetic code evolution.

They made several comments that will be helpful to improve your manuscript. In particular, as pointed out by Reviewer #1, it would be important to clarify whether UAG is completely reassigned or whether it may still be used as a stop codon to some degree.

In light of the reviews, we would like to invite you to revise the work to carefully address the reviewers' reports.

Laurent Duret [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: In this paper, McGowan et al report the discovery of novel reassignments of the UAG stop codon in the ciliate class Phyllopharyngea. UAG appears to be reassigned to leucine in a clade of uncultivated ciliates only known from metagenomics, and UAG is additionally reassigned to glutamine in two other Phyllopharyngeal lineages represented by a single species each. These findings add to the already extensive diversity of stop codon reassignments in ciliates, a fascinating system with regards to genetic code evolution. Neither reassignment of UAG to leucine or glutamine in isolation has been previously reported in ciliates. Broadening the diversity of stop codon reassignments known in ciliates is important for future work on why stop codons reassignments are so prevalent in the ciliate clade and on the features that determine codon specificity of eukaryotic release factors.

This claims in this paper are supported by rigorous computational methodology. Since these species are uncultivated, experimental confirmation of these reassignments is out of reach and having multiple lines of computational support is critical. Genetic code predictions were validated by three independent computational approaches using different sets of conserved genes. A consistent suppressor tRNA is found in two of the genomes. Phylogenetic analyses repeated using both ML and Bayesian approaches to establish that the UAG to glutamine reassignments are truly two independent events.

Major comment

- The authors should clarify whether UAG is completely reassigned or whether it may still be used as a stop codon to some degree. These reassignments are currently referred to as if they are unambiguous stop-to-sense reassignments, but no evidence is shown for whether UAG is or isn’t still used as a stop. This is an important point to address in ciliates where dual-sense stop codons have been found in at least two independent lineages. This could be established by an analysis looking at whether UAGs ever occur at positions that align to termination codons in related ciliates. Another analysis that may be interesting to see for the reassigned species is whether UAG usage as a sense codon is depleted in the proximity of the real termination codon (see Fig 5A of Seah et al, 2022 https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.141 ), which would indicate some remaining context-dependent termination at UAGs. Knowing whether UAG still functions as a stop codon is important for understanding how this reassignment evolved and what mutations to the translational machinery would have been necessary to allow for it.

Minor comments:

- For the computational genetic code predictions by the various methods, it may be informative to mention the number of codons for the average sense codon and for the other stop codons UAA and UGA, just to establish a reference point for whether the number of in-frame UAGs is similar to other sense codons. Alignment-based approaches could potentially get spurious alignment of stop codons to protein models from recent pseudogenes or sequencing errors.

- In figure 4, dual-sense stop codons are not indicated, making it seem like all of these stop-to-sense reassignments are unambiguous. For example, Plagiopyla frontata, as indicated your previous paper (McGowan et al, 2023), has UGA -> W/*

- In the section about codon usage (lines 225-256), it is unclear how stop codon usage was calculated. For species with predicted UAG reassignments, was UAG considered to be a potential stop codon?

- In lines 216-218, the statement that the suppressor tRNAs are most similar to leucine tRNAs needs to be substantiated more. How is this similarity measured? What other tRNAs were the suppressor tRNAs compared against? How were the tRNA alignments constructed? You can also refer to the literature on tRNA identity to argue that these tRNAs are likely recognized by the leucyl-tRNA synthetase due to the presence of tRNA features (see Giege et al, 2023 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkad007 ).

- In Figure S4a, the tRNA secondary structure for the TARA ARC 108 MAG 00306 SupCTA tRNA is incorrect. The variable stem-loop has no loop, which is physically impossible. Instead, the bulged “AA” should be base pairing with the UU, and there should be a GCAA tetraloop at the end. Similarly, the alignment in S4b should be adjusted (especially if arguments about sequence similarity are being based on it). In particular, in the D-loop, the invariant nucleotides G18 and G19 should be aligned to the same column for all sequences. There are designated positions where insertions in tRNAs should be placed (see Sprinzl et al, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/26.1.148 ). A decent alignment can probably be automatically generated by tRNAscan-SE or Infernal. Currently there is no description of how this alignment was generated.

- In the discussion (lines 292-298), the argument that reverse reassignment back to a stop codon is unlikely is weak. All codon reassignments are deeply unlikely—part of what makes them so interesting is the fact that they do evolve despite being counterintuitive. One could imagine UAG reverting back to being a sense codon, for example, if genomic GC content shifted such that UAG became a very rare sense codon, and now UAG can be reassigned to a stop codon more easily.

Reviewer #2: I am attaching the review as MS Word file to preserve formatting of the text.

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript McGowan et al have analysed 30 metagenomic assemblies from TARA Oceans project and identified three genomes with UAG codon reassignment decoupled from UAA codon. [They have reported such decoupling in another species two years ago in a publication in the same journal.] Then they assembled additional genomes using raw data obtained from the related species and found additional reassignments. In total three genomes with UAG reassignment to L and two with reassignment to Q. The authors employed two methods for identification of codon reassignments that provide strong support for these findings.

By obtaining sequences from closely related species they were able to reconstruct their phylogenetic relationship and explore the evolution of these reassignments. The analysis suggests that UAG reassignments to Q have occurred independently at least twice. This specific claim relies on the limited genomic data and the accuracy of phylogenetic analysis. I find support for this specific claim relatively weak, but I agree with the authors’ interpretation as the most parsimonious scenario in the light of available data.

The manuscript is sufficiently detailed to enable reproduction of this study and is well written and easy to understand, albeit I have some minor suggestions for improving the text below.

In conclusion, I think it is an important and reliable study that expands our understanding of variant genetic codes diversity in ciliates and its evolution. My comments and suggestions below are intended mostly just to clarify some aspects of this study.

Specific comments:

1. The authors mentioned in Results that they cleaned the data from contaminant sequences before assembly. I couldn’t find the description of how this was done.

2. The authors report the number of UAG codons corresponding to inferred amino acids in pfam alignments. I still haven’t used Codetta myself and don’t know if it is easy/possible to get information on the number of pfam matches where UAG corresponds to a different amino acid. It would be interesting (of possible) to have Codetta analysis represented in the same way as PhyloFisher (Figure S2).

3. I would appreciate if the authors could provide a bit more detail on selection of specific models for phylogenetic analysis.

4. The authors discuss the reasons for UAG and UAA coupled meaning in variant genetic codes in the Discussion section and also argue that reassignment of UAA is less likely that of UAG, indeed it has not been observed so far. I fully agree with the authors argument, but I wonder if it will be useful to bring this to introduction to explain why UAG/UAA decoupling is so rare and interesting.

5. the use of canonical/non-canonical:

“In most reported non-canonical genetic code changes…” such wording may suggest that there are canonical and non-canonical changes of the genetic code. But I am sure that this is not what the authors meant. Overall, if possible, I would advice against using ‘canonical’ and ‘non-canonical’. Besides the theological origin of such language these are vague descriptors. Readers opinions on what is canonical and non-canonical may differ and also change over time. I would suggest using more concrete terms, i.e. ‘standard genetic code’ and ‘variant genetic codes’, the authors do use these terms at places, so it may be also better to stick to them for consistency. I find “Codon usage of canonical and reassigned stop codons” also a bit awkward, one may argue that UAG, UAA and UGA are standard (or canonical if you wish) stop codons and other stop codons (such as AGG in vertebrate mitochondria) are non-standard (non-canonical). But that’s npt what is meant here. I wonder if it will be more accurate to formulate it as something like this “Codon usage of UAA, UAG and UGA specifying stops or reassigned amino acids” or even simpler “UAA, UAG and UGA codons usage”.

6. Line 23

“an unusual exception” – to avoid accidental misinterpretation by a uninitiated reader of this being a unique exception, I would consider using a word other than “unusual”, say, something that would emphasize ciliates as being an extreme example of such exceptions for example “the most prominent exception”.

7. Line 196: Change “that translation of UAG to glutamine” to “that reassignment of UAG to glutamine”

Pasha Baranov

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy, and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Pavel Baranov

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] Figure resubmission: While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions. Reproducibility: To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Attachment

Submitted filename: McGowan_et_al._2024_review.docx

pgen.1011512.s009.docx^{(19.5KB, docx)}

PLoS Genet. 2024 Dec 17;20(12):e1011512. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011512.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

21 Nov 2024

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pgen.1011512.s010.docx^{(552.4KB, docx)}

PLoS Genet. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011512.r003

Decision Letter 1

Laurent Duret, Eva H Stukenbrock

25 Nov 2024

Dear Dr McGowan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Multiple Independent Genetic Code Reassignments of the UAG Stop Codon in Phyllopharyngean Ciliates" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics!

Yours sincerely,

Laurent Duret

Guest Editor

PLOS Genetics

Eva Stukenbrock

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Aimée Dudley

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Anne Goriely

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

----------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

----------------------------------------------------

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository. As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website.

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly:

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-24-00945R1

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

----------------------------------------------------

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org.

PLoS Genet. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011512.r004

Acceptance letter

Laurent Duret, Eva H Stukenbrock

10 Dec 2024

PGENETICS-D-24-00945R1

Multiple Independent Genetic Code Reassignments of the UAG Stop Codon in Phyllopharyngean Ciliates

Dear Dr McGowan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Multiple Independent Genetic Code Reassignments of the UAG Stop Codon in Phyllopharyngean Ciliates" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Zsofia Freund

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. Genetic code prediction of the UAG codon using Codetta.

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s001.pdf^{(65.7KB, pdf)}

S2 Fig. Genetic code prediction of the UAG codon using the genetic_code_examiner utility from PhyloFisher.

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s002.pdf^{(167.7KB, pdf)}

S3 Fig. Frequency of in-frame UAG codons across gene body compared to standard leucine and glutamine codons.

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s003.pdf^{(726.2KB, pdf)}

S4 Fig. Maximum-likelihood phylogeny of 104 ciliate alpha-tubulin sequences constructed using IQ-TREE under the LG+R3 model.

Numbers represent support from 1000 ultrafast bootstrap replicates. Three apicomplexan sequences were included as an outgroup.

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s004.pdf^{(55.4KB, pdf)}

S5 Fig

(PDF)

pgen.1011512.s005.pdf^{(131.4KB, pdf)}

S1 Table. Summary of the genome assembly and annotation statistics and the species included in the OrthoFinder analysis.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011512.s006.xlsx^{(12.4KB, xlsx)}

S2 Table. Number of Pfam alignments per codon from the Codetta analysis.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011512.s007.xlsx^{(14.4KB, xlsx)}

S3 Table. Counts of miniprot alignments of reference proteins against each genome assembly corresponding to stop codons.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011512.s008.xlsx^{(11.9KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: McGowan_et_al._2024_review.docx

pgen.1011512.s009.docx^{(19.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pgen.1011512.s010.docx^{(552.4KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

Supporting data have been deposited on Zenodo (10.5281/zenodo.12744466).

[pgen.1011512.ref001] 1.Crick FHC. The origin of the genetic code. Journal of Molecular Biology. 1968;38: 367–379. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(68)90392-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref002] 2.Keeling PJ. Genomics: Evolution of the Genetic Code. Current Biology. 2016;26: R851–R853. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref003] 3.Lozupone CA, Knight RD, Landweber LF. The molecular basis of nuclear genetic code change in ciliates. Current Biology. 2001;11: 65–74. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00028-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref004] 4.Wang C, Gao Y, Lu B, Chi Y, Zhang T, El-Serehy HA, et al. Large-scale phylogenomic analysis provides new insights into the phylogeny of the class Oligohymenophorea (Protista, Ciliophora) with establishment of a new subclass Urocentria nov. subcl. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2021;159: 107112. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref005] 5.Heaphy SM, Mariotti M, Gladyshev VN, Atkins JF, Baranov PV. Novel Ciliate Genetic Code Variants Including the Reassignment of All Three Stop Codons to Sense Codons in Condylostoma magnum. Mol Biol Evol. 2016;33: 2885–2889. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw166 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref006] 6.Meyer F, Schmidt HJ, Plümper E, Hasilik A, Mersmann G, Meyer HE, et al. UGA is translated as cysteine in pheromone 3 of Euplotes octocarinatus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1991;88: 3758–3761. doi: 10.1073/pnas.88.9.3758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref007] 7.Chen W, Geng Y, Zhang B, Yan Y, Zhao F, Miao M. Stop or Not: Genome-Wide Profiling of Reassigned Stop Codons in Ciliates. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2023;40: msad064. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msad064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref008] 8.Swart EC, Serra V, Petroni G, Nowacki M. Genetic Codes with No Dedicated Stop Codon: Context-Dependent Translation Termination. Cell. 2016;166: 691–702. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref009] 9.Seah BKB, Singh A, Swart EC. Karyorelict ciliates use an ambiguous genetic code with context-dependent stop/sense codons. Peer Community Journal. 2022;2. doi: 10.24072/pcjournal.141 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref010] 10.McGowan J, Kilias ES, Alacid E, Lipscombe J, Jenkins BH, Gharbi K, et al. Identification of a non-canonical ciliate nuclear genetic code where UAA and UAG code for different amino acids. PLoS Genet. 2023;19: e1010913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref011] 11.Kollmar M, Mühlhausen S. Nuclear codon reassignments in the genomics era and mechanisms behind their evolution. BioEssays. 2017;39: 1600221. doi: 10.1002/bies.201600221 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref012] 12.Pánek T, Žihala D, Sokol M, Derelle R, Klimeš V, Hradilová M, et al. Nuclear genetic codes with a different meaning of the UAG and the UAA codon. BMC Biol. 2017;15: 8. doi: 10.1186/s12915-017-0353-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref013] 13.Hanyu N, Kuchino Y, Nishimura S, Beier H. Dramatic events in ciliate evolution: alteration of UAA and UAG termination codons to glutamine codons due to anticodon mutations in two Tetrahymena tRNAs ^Gln. The EMBO Journal. 1986;5: 1307–1311. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1986.tb04360.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref014] 14.Lynn DH, editor. The Ciliated Protozoa. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2010. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8239-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref015] 15.Bastos Gomes G, Jerry DR, Miller TL, Hutson KS. Current status of parasitic ciliates Chilodonella spp. (Phyllopharyngea: Chilodonellidae) in freshwater fish aquaculture. Journal of Fish Diseases. 2017;40: 703–715. doi: 10.1111/jfd.12523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref016] 16.Delmont TO, Gaia M, Hinsinger DD, Frémont P, Vanni C, Fernandez-Guerra A, et al. Functional repertoire convergence of distantly related eukaryotic plankton lineages abundant in the sunlit ocean. Cell Genomics. 2022;2: 100123. doi: 10.1016/j.xgen.2022.100123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref017] 17.Maurer-Alcalá XX, Knight R, Katz LA. Exploration of the Germline Genome of the Ciliate Chilodonella uncinata through Single-Cell Omics (Transcriptomics and Genomics). mBio. 2018;9: 10.1128/mbio.01836-17. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01836-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref018] 18.Pan B, Chen X, Hou L, Zhang Q, Qu Z, Warren A, et al. Comparative Genomics Analysis of Ciliates Provides Insights on the Evolutionary History Within “Nassophorea–Synhymenia–Phyllopharyngea” Assemblage. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2019;10: 02819. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref019] 19.Tice AK, Žihala D, Pánek T, Jones RE, Salomaki ED, Nenarokov S, et al. PhyloFisher: A phylogenomic package for resolving eukaryotic relationships. PLoS Biol. 2021;19: e3001365. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref020] 20.Shulgina Y, Eddy SR. Codetta: predicting the genetic code from nucleotide sequence. Bioinformatics. 2023;39: btac802. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref021] 21.Gao S, Huang J, Li J, Song W. Molecular Phylogeny of the Cyrtophorid Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora, Phyllopharyngea). PLOS ONE. 2012;7: e33198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref022] 22.Chan PP, Lin BY, Mak AJ, Lowe TM. tRNAscan-SE 2.0: improved detection and functional classification of transfer RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Research. 2021;49: 9077–9096. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab688 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref023] 23.Giegé R, Eriani G. The tRNA identity landscape for aminoacylation and beyond. Nucleic Acids Research. 2023;51: 1528–1570. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref024] 24.Osawa S, Jukes TH. Codon reassignment (codon capture) in evolution. J Mol Evol. 1989;28: 271–278. doi: 10.1007/BF02103422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref025] 25.Schultz DW, Yarus M. Transfer RNA Mutation and the Malleability of the Genetic Code. Journal of Molecular Biology. 1994;235: 1377–1380. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1994.1094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref026] 26.Sengupta S, Higgs PG. A Unified Model of Codon Reassignment in Alternative Genetic Codes. Genetics. 2005;170: 831–840. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.037887 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref027] 27.Mühlhausen S, Findeisen P, Plessmann U, Urlaub H, Kollmar M. A novel nuclear genetic code alteration in yeasts and the evolution of codon reassignment in eukaryotes. Genome Res. 2016;26: 945–955. doi: 10.1101/gr.200931.115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref028] 28.Dabrowski M, Bukowy-Bieryllo Z, Zietkiewicz E. Translational readthrough potential of natural termination codons in eucaryotes–The impact of RNA sequence. RNA Biology. 2015;12: 950–958. doi: 10.1080/15476286.2015.1068497 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref029] 29.Li X, Hou Z, Xu C, Shi X, Yang L, Lewis LA, et al. Large Phylogenomic Data sets Reveal Deep Relationships and Trait Evolution in Chlorophyte Green Algae. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2021;13: evab101. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evab101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref030] 30.Ho AT, Hurst LD. Stop Codon Usage as a Window into Genome Evolution: Mutation, Selection, Biased Gene Conversion and the TAG Paradox. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2022;14: evac115. doi: 10.1093/gbe/evac115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref031] 31.Rotterová J, Pánek T, Salomaki ED, Kotyk M, Táborský P, Kolísko M, et al. Single cell transcriptomics reveals UAR codon reassignment in Palmarella salina (Metopida, Armophorea) and confirms Armophorida belongs to APM clade. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2024;191: 107991. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2023.107991 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref032] 32.Cocquyt E, Gile GH, Leliaert F, Verbruggen H, Keeling PJ, De Clerck O. Complex phylogenetic distribution of a non-canonical genetic code in green algae. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2010;10: 327. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-327 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref033] 33.Keeling PJ, Doolittle WF. A non-canonical genetic code in an early diverging eukaryotic lineage. The EMBO Journal. 1996;15: 2285–2290. doi: 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00581.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref034] 34.Keeling PJ, Leander BS. Characterisation of a Non-canonical Genetic Code in the Oxymonad Streblomastix strix. Journal of Molecular Biology. 2003;326: 1337–1349. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00057-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref035] 35.Karpov SA, Mikhailov KV, Mirzaeva GS, Mirabdullaev IM, Mamkaeva KA, Titova NN, et al. Obligately Phagotrophic Aphelids Turned out to Branch with the Earliest-diverging Fungi. Protist. 2013;164: 195–205. doi: 10.1016/j.protis.2012.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref036] 36.Hayashi-Ishimaru Y, Ohama T, Kawatsu Y, Nakamura K, Osawa S. UAG is a sense codon in several chlorophycean mitochondria. Curr Genet. 1996;30: 29–33. doi: 10.1007/s002940050096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref037] 37.Noutahi E, Calderon V, Blanchette M, El-Mabrouk N, Lang BF. Rapid Genetic Code Evolution in Green Algal Mitochondrial Genomes. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2019;36: 766–783. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msz016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref038] 38.Laforest M-J, Roewer I, Lang BF. Mitochondrial tRNAs in the Lower Fungus Spizellomyces Punctatus tRNA Editing and UAG ‘Stop’ Codons Recognized as Leucine. Nucleic Acids Research. 1997;25: 626–632. doi: 10.1093/nar/25.3.626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref039] 39.Hinegardner RT, Engelberg J. Rationale for a Universal Genetic Code. Science. 1963;142: 1083–1085. doi: 10.1126/science.142.3595.1083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref040] 40.Prjibelski A, Antipov D, Meleshko D, Lapidus A, Korobeynikov A. Using SPAdes De Novo Assembler. Current Protocols in Bioinformatics. 2020;70: e102. doi: 10.1002/cpbi.102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref041] 41.Karlicki M, Antonowicz S, Karnkowska A. Tiara: deep learning-based classification system for eukaryotic sequences. Bioinformatics. 2022;38: 344–350. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref042] 42.Brůna T, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M. GeneMark-EP+: eukaryotic gene prediction with self-training in the space of genes and proteins. NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics. 2020;2: lqaa026. doi: 10.1093/nargab/lqaa026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref043] 43.Buchfink B, Reuter K, Drost H-G. Sensitive protein alignments at tree-of-life scale using DIAMOND. Nat Methods. 2021;18: 366–368. doi: 10.1038/s41592-021-01101-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref044] 44.Stanke M, Schöffmann O, Morgenstern B, Waack S. Gene prediction in eukaryotes with a generalized hidden Markov model that uses hints from external sources. BMC Bioinformatics. 2006;7: 62. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-62 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref045] 45.Emms DM, Kelly S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biology. 2019;20: 238. doi: 10.1186/s13059-019-1832-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref046] 46.Katoh K, Standley DM. MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: Improvements in Performance and Usability. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2013;30: 772–780. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref047] 47.Crooks GE, Hon G, Chandonia J-M, Brenner SE. WebLogo: A Sequence Logo Generator. Genome Res. 2004;14: 1188–1190. doi: 10.1101/gr.849004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref048] 48.Li H. Protein-to-genome alignment with miniprot. Bioinformatics. 2023;39: btad014. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref049] 49.Gao F, Warren A, Zhang Q, Gong J, Miao M, Sun P, et al. The All-Data-Based Evolutionary Hypothesis of Ciliated Protists with a Revised Classification of the Phylum Ciliophora (Eukaryota, Alveolata). Sci Rep. 2016;6: 24874. doi: 10.1038/srep24874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref050] 50.Minh BQ, Schmidt HA, Chernomor O, Schrempf D, Woodhams MD, von Haeseler A, et al. IQ-TREE 2: New Models and Efficient Methods for Phylogenetic Inference in the Genomic Era. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2020;37: 1530–1534. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msaa015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref051] 51.Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TKF, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods. 2017;14: 587–589. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref052] 52.Hoang DT, Chernomor O, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ, Vinh LS. UFBoot2: Improving the Ultrafast Bootstrap Approximation. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2018;35: 518–522. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref053] 53.Manni M, Berkeley MR, Seppey M, Simão FA, Zdobnov EM. BUSCO Update: Novel and Streamlined Workflows along with Broader and Deeper Phylogenetic Coverage for Scoring of Eukaryotic, Prokaryotic, and Viral Genomes. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2021;38: 4647–4654. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref054] 54.Edgar RC. Muscle5: High-accuracy alignment ensembles enable unbiased assessments of sequence homology and phylogeny. Nat Commun. 2022;13: 6968. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-34630-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref055] 55.Capella-Gutierrez S, Silla-Martinez JM, Gabaldon T. trimAl: a tool for automated alignment trimming in large-scale phylogenetic analyses. Bioinformatics. 2009;25: 1972–1973. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref056] 56.Wang H-C, Minh BQ, Susko E, Roger AJ. Modeling Site Heterogeneity with Posterior Mean Site Frequency Profiles Accelerates Accurate Phylogenomic Estimation. Systematic Biology. 2018;67: 216–235. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syx068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref057] 57.Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP. FastTree 2 –Approximately Maximum-Likelihood Trees for Large Alignments. PLoS ONE. 2010;5: e9490. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref058] 58.Lartillot N, Rodrigue N, Stubbs D, Richer J. PhyloBayes MPI: Phylogenetic Reconstruction with Infinite Mixtures of Profiles in a Parallel Environment. Systematic Biology. 2013;62: 611–615. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syt022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pgen.1011512.ref059] 59.Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Research. 2021;49: W293–W296. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab301 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Multiple independent genetic code reassignments of the UAG stop codon in phyllopharyngean ciliates

Jamie McGowan

Thomas A Richards

Neil Hall

David Swarbreck

Roles

Abstract

Author summary

Introduction

Results

Reassignment of the UAG stop codon to leucine in an uncultivated lineage of ciliates

Fig 1. Genetic code prediction of the UAG codon.

Fig 2. Example multiple sequence alignment of orthologs of the DRG2 protein (developmentally-regulated GTP-binding protein 2) from ciliates and diverse representatives across Eukaryota.

Reassignment of the UAG stop codon to glutamine in Hartmannula sinica and Trochilia petrani

Phylogenomics reveals three independent genetic codon reassignments in Phyllopharyngea

Fig 3. Phylogenomics analysis of the CONthreeP lineage of ciliates.

Novel suppressor tRNAs for UAG

Codon usage of UAA, UAG, and UGA

Fig 4. Codon usage of UAA, UAG, and UGA codons and standard glutamine and leucine codons.

Discussion

Materials and methods

Dataset assembly

Genetic code prediction and genome annotation

Phylogenetics of alpha-tubulin sequences

Phylogenomics

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Laurent Duret

Eva H Stukenbrock

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Laurent Duret

Eva H Stukenbrock

Roles

Acceptance letter

Laurent Duret

Eva H Stukenbrock

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases