Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, Miyachi and Ichihashi investigate whether the arrangement of the genetic code affects mutational robustness. Using an in vitro minimal genetic code with vacant codons, they constructed 10 non-standard genetic codes by reassigning Ala, Ser, and Leu, generating codes with replacement costs that were generally higher than those of the standard genetic code across several amino acid property measures. They then tested how random mutations affected the activity of reporter proteins translated under these altered codes. Although error minimization theory predicts that higher-cost codes should make mutations more harmful, the authors report that protein function declined to a similar extent across all codes examined, suggesting that mutational robustness remains largely unchanged within the range of genetic code alterations tested here.
Strengths:
This is an interesting study that investigates one of the most fundamental and intriguing questions in molecular evolution: the emergence of the genetic code, which is nearly universal across nature. The in vitro approach is a powerful aspect of the work and provides an opportunity to examine this phenomenon experimentally at a depth that has previously been inaccessible.
Weaknesses:
However, the authors' use of random mutation libraries has certain limitations that prevent the study from realizing its full potential to uncover the mechanisms governing the molecular evolution of the genetic code.
Major points:
(1) Statistical analyses are missing for several of the manuscript's main claims. This issue applies throughout the paper, including, but not limited to, Figures 1D, 2B, 4B-D, and 5B.
(2) In Figure 2A, the authors modify the NanoLuc gene by reassigning Ala, Leu, or Ser to new codons and elegantly show that the in vitro availability of the corresponding tRNAs is important for protein function. However, the functional importance of the specific modified positions within NanoLuc is not clear. As a result, it is difficult to determine what the expected consequences of these codon changes should be, which in turn limits the interpretation of the observed changes in protein activity. To improve the interpretability of this experiment, the authors should report exactly how many codons were modified in each variant and, ideally, examine the effect of progressively increasing the number of reassigned codons.
(3) The calculations presented in Figure 3 raise an interesting conceptual question: why does the near-standard genetic code not exhibit the lowest cost? One possible explanation is that the standard genetic code evolved under multiple competing constraints and is therefore not expected to be optimal for any single cost metric, while still achieving strong overall performance. In this context, it would be informative if the authors combined the three cost measures into a single integrated index and examined whether the near-SGC performs more favorably when all three dimensions are considered together. Such an analysis could add important depth to the study.
(4) It is difficult to assess the consequences of the random mutations presented in Figure 4 on reporter gene function based solely on the reported "error rate/base" parameter. In particular, the x-axis in Figure 4B should be converted into the estimated number of mutations per gene. This would make the results more intuitive and would allow the reader to better evaluate the expected degree of disruption to protein function.
(5) A central limitation of the random mutagenesis libraries used in Figure 5, which also underlie one of the manuscript's main claims, is that the exact mutations and their distribution across the reporter genes are not reported. In addition, protein activity is measured only at the level of the entire library, without directly linking individual mutations to their functional consequences. This substantially limits mechanistic interpretation. In my view, this issue can only be addressed convincingly if the authors test a set of defined variants carrying specific mutations and directly evaluate their functional effects.
(6) Related to the previous point, in Figures 5C, 5E, and 5G, the authors present the ratio between low-mutation-rate and high-mutation-rate libraries. However, because each library contains a different collection of mutations, it is unclear what can be inferred from these comparisons. To overcome this limitation, the authors should assess the effects of altered genetic codes on specific, defined mutations rather than on heterogeneous mutation pools alone.
(7) Along the same lines, in Figures 5C, 5E, and 5G, it is unclear why the effects of random mutations would be expected to correlate with the three calculated cost metrics, given that the positions, identities, and functional relevance of the mutations within the genes are not known. Without this information, the biological meaning of these correlations remains difficult to evaluate.
(8) For each mutagenesis library, the number of variants, the average number of mutations per variant, and the distribution of mutation positions should be reported clearly and transparently. These details are important for evaluating the strength of the conclusions.
(9) Because only three amino acids were manipulated in the non-standard genetic codes, it remains unclear whether these particular amino acids occupy positions in the reporter proteins that are especially important for function and therefore likely to generate strong phenotypic effects. More broadly, it is not clear whether the assay is sufficiently sensitive to detect the effects of only a subset of deleterious variants within a pooled library. This point should be addressed more explicitly.