Abstract
Ronneberg et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:13690-13695, 2000) recently suggested abandoning the coevolution theory of genetic code origin on the basis of two pieces of evidence. They (1) criticize the use of several pairs of amino acids in a precursor-product relationship to support this theory and (2) suggest a new set of codes in which to investigate the statistical bases of the coevolution theory, reaching the conclusion that this theory is not statistically validated in this set. In this paper I critically analyze the robustness of these conclusions. Observations and arguments lead to the belief that the pairs of amino acids in a precursor-product relationship originally used by the coevolution theory are such, or may at least be interpreted as such, and are therefore a manifestation of this theory. Furthermore, the new set of codes that Ronneberg et al. suggest is open to criticism and is thus substituted by the set of amino acid permutation codes, in which even the pairs of amino acids they favor end up by supporting the coevolution theory. Overall, the analysis seems to show that the paper by Ronneberg et al. is of minor scientific value while the coevolution theory seems to be one of the best theories at our disposal for explaining the evolutionary organisation of the genetic code and is, contrary to their claims, statistically well validated.