Are redundant codons used in translation?











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












I am learning about redundancy in genetics and I came across this statement in my textbook:




more than one codon for an amino acid means that some codons are redundant - the process of protein synthesis could function without them.




I understand that codons are used to make specific amino acids. Does the statement from my textbook mean that if there are two codons which code for the same amino acid that only one of the codons code for an amino acid and not both? I know the term reduntant means that in some cases - more than one codon can code for the same amino acid - but does it also mean that some codons are not used because another codon codes for the same amino acid?



Thanks










share|improve this question









New contributor




christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    5
    down vote

    favorite












    I am learning about redundancy in genetics and I came across this statement in my textbook:




    more than one codon for an amino acid means that some codons are redundant - the process of protein synthesis could function without them.




    I understand that codons are used to make specific amino acids. Does the statement from my textbook mean that if there are two codons which code for the same amino acid that only one of the codons code for an amino acid and not both? I know the term reduntant means that in some cases - more than one codon can code for the same amino acid - but does it also mean that some codons are not used because another codon codes for the same amino acid?



    Thanks










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite











      I am learning about redundancy in genetics and I came across this statement in my textbook:




      more than one codon for an amino acid means that some codons are redundant - the process of protein synthesis could function without them.




      I understand that codons are used to make specific amino acids. Does the statement from my textbook mean that if there are two codons which code for the same amino acid that only one of the codons code for an amino acid and not both? I know the term reduntant means that in some cases - more than one codon can code for the same amino acid - but does it also mean that some codons are not used because another codon codes for the same amino acid?



      Thanks










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I am learning about redundancy in genetics and I came across this statement in my textbook:




      more than one codon for an amino acid means that some codons are redundant - the process of protein synthesis could function without them.




      I understand that codons are used to make specific amino acids. Does the statement from my textbook mean that if there are two codons which code for the same amino acid that only one of the codons code for an amino acid and not both? I know the term reduntant means that in some cases - more than one codon can code for the same amino acid - but does it also mean that some codons are not used because another codon codes for the same amino acid?



      Thanks







      molecular-biology molecular-genetics codon genetic-code






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited yesterday









      David

      11.5k41747




      11.5k41747






      New contributor




      christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked Dec 2 at 2:46









      christopher

      343




      343




      New contributor




      christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      christopher is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          The textbook is asserting that translation could function without redundant codons, not that it does. In reality, all possible codons are used.



          See this answer on the interchangeability of codons.






          share|improve this answer




























            up vote
            4
            down vote













            The term ‘redundant’ is not ideal in this respect, as that implies a redundancy in reality rather than theory, as @canadianer points out.



            Redundancy and Degeneracy



            However I would mention that there is another term more usually applied to the fact that certain amino acids are encoded by more than one codon — degeneracy.



            There is a Wikipedia entry on Codon Degeneracy:




            Degeneracy of codons is the redundancy of the genetic code, exhibited as the multiplicity of three-base pair codon combinations that specify an amino acid. The degeneracy of the genetic code is what accounts for the existence of synonymous mutations.




            Although this definition may appear circular in that it refers to redundancy, I am fairly sure that historically degeneracy was one of the attributes listed for the genetic code (e.g. by Crick):



            specific

            non-overlapping

            comma-less

            degenerate

            universal (no longer true)



            I perceive the traces of this in the Nature Scitable entry for the genetic code.



            Synonymous Codon Usage



            Codons that code for the same amino acid are termed ‘synonymous’. An obvious follow-up to the question and answer in this post is on the lines of “Does it matter which synonymous codon is used? Are all used equally and is it the same in all organisms and genes?”. The answer is that synonymous codon usage is non-random in various different circumstances. This is a broad area, but the Wikipedia entry on Codon Usage Bias is one place to start. There is also a question on this topic on this list.



            “Does it also mean that some codons are not used?”



            Answering this specific question here (documented in the references above) even where there is extreme bias in the codon usage in a genome, generally all possible codons are employed. This may be for regulatory reasons (if the tRNAs for these codons are rare, and hence this would be a way of slowing down translation for proteins only needed in small quantities), structural reasons (to allow a particular secondary structure for the mRNA) or some other less obvious reason.






            share|improve this answer























              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "375"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });






              christopher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f79480%2fare-redundant-codons-used-in-translation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              5
              down vote













              The textbook is asserting that translation could function without redundant codons, not that it does. In reality, all possible codons are used.



              See this answer on the interchangeability of codons.






              share|improve this answer

























                up vote
                5
                down vote













                The textbook is asserting that translation could function without redundant codons, not that it does. In reality, all possible codons are used.



                See this answer on the interchangeability of codons.






                share|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  5
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  5
                  down vote









                  The textbook is asserting that translation could function without redundant codons, not that it does. In reality, all possible codons are used.



                  See this answer on the interchangeability of codons.






                  share|improve this answer












                  The textbook is asserting that translation could function without redundant codons, not that it does. In reality, all possible codons are used.



                  See this answer on the interchangeability of codons.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 2 at 3:08









                  canadianer

                  14.6k43374




                  14.6k43374






















                      up vote
                      4
                      down vote













                      The term ‘redundant’ is not ideal in this respect, as that implies a redundancy in reality rather than theory, as @canadianer points out.



                      Redundancy and Degeneracy



                      However I would mention that there is another term more usually applied to the fact that certain amino acids are encoded by more than one codon — degeneracy.



                      There is a Wikipedia entry on Codon Degeneracy:




                      Degeneracy of codons is the redundancy of the genetic code, exhibited as the multiplicity of three-base pair codon combinations that specify an amino acid. The degeneracy of the genetic code is what accounts for the existence of synonymous mutations.




                      Although this definition may appear circular in that it refers to redundancy, I am fairly sure that historically degeneracy was one of the attributes listed for the genetic code (e.g. by Crick):



                      specific

                      non-overlapping

                      comma-less

                      degenerate

                      universal (no longer true)



                      I perceive the traces of this in the Nature Scitable entry for the genetic code.



                      Synonymous Codon Usage



                      Codons that code for the same amino acid are termed ‘synonymous’. An obvious follow-up to the question and answer in this post is on the lines of “Does it matter which synonymous codon is used? Are all used equally and is it the same in all organisms and genes?”. The answer is that synonymous codon usage is non-random in various different circumstances. This is a broad area, but the Wikipedia entry on Codon Usage Bias is one place to start. There is also a question on this topic on this list.



                      “Does it also mean that some codons are not used?”



                      Answering this specific question here (documented in the references above) even where there is extreme bias in the codon usage in a genome, generally all possible codons are employed. This may be for regulatory reasons (if the tRNAs for these codons are rare, and hence this would be a way of slowing down translation for proteins only needed in small quantities), structural reasons (to allow a particular secondary structure for the mRNA) or some other less obvious reason.






                      share|improve this answer



























                        up vote
                        4
                        down vote













                        The term ‘redundant’ is not ideal in this respect, as that implies a redundancy in reality rather than theory, as @canadianer points out.



                        Redundancy and Degeneracy



                        However I would mention that there is another term more usually applied to the fact that certain amino acids are encoded by more than one codon — degeneracy.



                        There is a Wikipedia entry on Codon Degeneracy:




                        Degeneracy of codons is the redundancy of the genetic code, exhibited as the multiplicity of three-base pair codon combinations that specify an amino acid. The degeneracy of the genetic code is what accounts for the existence of synonymous mutations.




                        Although this definition may appear circular in that it refers to redundancy, I am fairly sure that historically degeneracy was one of the attributes listed for the genetic code (e.g. by Crick):



                        specific

                        non-overlapping

                        comma-less

                        degenerate

                        universal (no longer true)



                        I perceive the traces of this in the Nature Scitable entry for the genetic code.



                        Synonymous Codon Usage



                        Codons that code for the same amino acid are termed ‘synonymous’. An obvious follow-up to the question and answer in this post is on the lines of “Does it matter which synonymous codon is used? Are all used equally and is it the same in all organisms and genes?”. The answer is that synonymous codon usage is non-random in various different circumstances. This is a broad area, but the Wikipedia entry on Codon Usage Bias is one place to start. There is also a question on this topic on this list.



                        “Does it also mean that some codons are not used?”



                        Answering this specific question here (documented in the references above) even where there is extreme bias in the codon usage in a genome, generally all possible codons are employed. This may be for regulatory reasons (if the tRNAs for these codons are rare, and hence this would be a way of slowing down translation for proteins only needed in small quantities), structural reasons (to allow a particular secondary structure for the mRNA) or some other less obvious reason.






                        share|improve this answer

























                          up vote
                          4
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          4
                          down vote









                          The term ‘redundant’ is not ideal in this respect, as that implies a redundancy in reality rather than theory, as @canadianer points out.



                          Redundancy and Degeneracy



                          However I would mention that there is another term more usually applied to the fact that certain amino acids are encoded by more than one codon — degeneracy.



                          There is a Wikipedia entry on Codon Degeneracy:




                          Degeneracy of codons is the redundancy of the genetic code, exhibited as the multiplicity of three-base pair codon combinations that specify an amino acid. The degeneracy of the genetic code is what accounts for the existence of synonymous mutations.




                          Although this definition may appear circular in that it refers to redundancy, I am fairly sure that historically degeneracy was one of the attributes listed for the genetic code (e.g. by Crick):



                          specific

                          non-overlapping

                          comma-less

                          degenerate

                          universal (no longer true)



                          I perceive the traces of this in the Nature Scitable entry for the genetic code.



                          Synonymous Codon Usage



                          Codons that code for the same amino acid are termed ‘synonymous’. An obvious follow-up to the question and answer in this post is on the lines of “Does it matter which synonymous codon is used? Are all used equally and is it the same in all organisms and genes?”. The answer is that synonymous codon usage is non-random in various different circumstances. This is a broad area, but the Wikipedia entry on Codon Usage Bias is one place to start. There is also a question on this topic on this list.



                          “Does it also mean that some codons are not used?”



                          Answering this specific question here (documented in the references above) even where there is extreme bias in the codon usage in a genome, generally all possible codons are employed. This may be for regulatory reasons (if the tRNAs for these codons are rare, and hence this would be a way of slowing down translation for proteins only needed in small quantities), structural reasons (to allow a particular secondary structure for the mRNA) or some other less obvious reason.






                          share|improve this answer














                          The term ‘redundant’ is not ideal in this respect, as that implies a redundancy in reality rather than theory, as @canadianer points out.



                          Redundancy and Degeneracy



                          However I would mention that there is another term more usually applied to the fact that certain amino acids are encoded by more than one codon — degeneracy.



                          There is a Wikipedia entry on Codon Degeneracy:




                          Degeneracy of codons is the redundancy of the genetic code, exhibited as the multiplicity of three-base pair codon combinations that specify an amino acid. The degeneracy of the genetic code is what accounts for the existence of synonymous mutations.




                          Although this definition may appear circular in that it refers to redundancy, I am fairly sure that historically degeneracy was one of the attributes listed for the genetic code (e.g. by Crick):



                          specific

                          non-overlapping

                          comma-less

                          degenerate

                          universal (no longer true)



                          I perceive the traces of this in the Nature Scitable entry for the genetic code.



                          Synonymous Codon Usage



                          Codons that code for the same amino acid are termed ‘synonymous’. An obvious follow-up to the question and answer in this post is on the lines of “Does it matter which synonymous codon is used? Are all used equally and is it the same in all organisms and genes?”. The answer is that synonymous codon usage is non-random in various different circumstances. This is a broad area, but the Wikipedia entry on Codon Usage Bias is one place to start. There is also a question on this topic on this list.



                          “Does it also mean that some codons are not used?”



                          Answering this specific question here (documented in the references above) even where there is extreme bias in the codon usage in a genome, generally all possible codons are employed. This may be for regulatory reasons (if the tRNAs for these codons are rare, and hence this would be a way of slowing down translation for proteins only needed in small quantities), structural reasons (to allow a particular secondary structure for the mRNA) or some other less obvious reason.







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited yesterday

























                          answered Dec 2 at 11:58









                          David

                          11.5k41747




                          11.5k41747






















                              christopher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                              draft saved

                              draft discarded


















                              christopher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                              christopher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              christopher is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Biology Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbiology.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f79480%2fare-redundant-codons-used-in-translation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown