Skip to main content
Log in

Barbieri’s Organic Codes Enable Error Correction of Genomes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Barbieri introduced and developed the concept of organic codes. The most basic of them is the genetic code, a set of correspondence rules between otherwise unrelated sequences: strings of nucleotides on the one hand, polypeptidic chains on the other hand. Barbieri noticed that it implies ‘coding by convention’ as arbitrary as the semantic relations a language establishes between words and outer objects. Moreover, the major transitions in life evolution originated in new organic codes similarly involving conventional rules. Independently, dealing with heredity as communication over time and relying on information theory, we asserted that the conservation of genomes over the ages demands that error-correcting codes make them resilient to casual errors. Moreover, the better conservation of very old parts of the genome demands that they result from combining successively established nested codes such that the older an information, the more numerous component codes protect it. Barbieri’s concept of organic code and that of genomic error-correcting code may seem unrelated. We show however that organic codes actually entail error-correcting properties. Error-correcting, in general, results from constraints being imposed on a set of sequences. Mathematical equalities are conveniently used in communication engineering for expressing constraints but error correction only needs that constraints exist. Biological sequences are similarly endowed with error-correcting ability by physical-chemical or linguistic constraints, thus defining ‘soft codes’. These constraints are moreover presumably efficient for correcting errors. Insofar as biological sequences are subjected to constraints, organic codes necessarily involve soft codes, and their successive onset results in the nested structure we hypothesized. Organic codes are generated and maintained by means of molecular ‘semantic feedback loops’. Each of these loops involves genes which code for proteins, the enzymatic action of which controls a function needed for the protein assembly. Taken together, thus, they control the assembly of their own structure as instructed by the genome and, once closed, these loops ensure their own conservation. However, the semantic feedback loops do not prevent the genome lengthening. It increases both the redundancy of the genome (as an error-correcting code) and the information quantity it bears, thus improving the genome reliability and the specificity of the enzymes, which enables further evolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One may argue against this conclusion that the excess length of genomes is due to the existence of ‘junk DNA’. Even if it were true (and it is probably not), even a small fraction of the huge lengths of genomes actually devoted to redundancy would amply suffice.

  2. We mean here any error which occasionally affects the genome, including possible remaining copying errors but not limited to them.

References

  • Arnéodo, A., et al. (1998). Nucleotide composition effects on the long-range correlations in human genes. European Physical Journal B, 1, 259–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audit, B., et al. (2002). Long-range correlation between DNA bending sites: relation to the structure and dynamics of nucleosomes. Journal of Molecular Biology, 316, 903–918.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (1998). The organic codes. The basic mechanism of macroevolution. Rivista di Biologia-Biology Forum, 91, 481–514.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, M. (2003). Organic codes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Barbieri, M. (2012). Code Biology — A new science of life. Biosemiotics, 5(3), 411–437. doi:10.1007/s1234-012-9147-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (1996). On random-like codes. In J.-Y. Chouinard, P. Fortier, T.A. Gulliver (Eds.) Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 1133, pp. 76–94). Springer.

  • Battail, G. (1997). Does information theory explain biological evolution? Europhysics Letters, 40(3), 343–348.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2001). Is biological evolution relevant to information theory and coding? In Proc. ISCTA ’01 (pp. 343–351).

  • Battail, G. (2004). An engineer’s view on genetic information and biological evolution. Biosystems, 76, 279–290.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2005). Genetics as a communication process involving error-correcting codes. Journal of Biosemiotics, 1(1), 103–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2006a). Should genetics get an information-theoretic education? IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 25(1), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2006b). Error-correcting codes and genetics. TripleC, 4(2), 217–229. http://triplec.uti.at/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2007a). Information theory and error-correcting codes in genetics and biological evolution. In G. Battail (Ed.) Introduction to biosemiotics (pp. 299–345). Springer.

  • Battail, G. (2007b). Impact of information theory on the fundamentals of genetics. In G. Witzany (Ed.) Biosemiotics in transdisciplinary contexts. Helsinki: Umweb.

  • Battail, G. (2008a). Can we explain the faithful communication of genetic information? In P.H. Siegel, E. Soljanin, A.J. van Wijngaarden, B. Vasic (Eds.) Advances in information recording, DIMACS series (Vol. 73, pp. 79–103).

  • Battail, G. (2008b). Genomic error-correcting codes in the living world. Biosemiotics. doi:10.1007/s12304-008-9019-z.

  • Battail, G. (2008c). An outline of informational genetics. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool.

  • Battail, G. (2009a). Applying semiotics and information theory to biology: A critical comparison. Biosemiotics, 2(3), 303–320. doi:10.1007/s12304-009-9062-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2009b). Living versus inanimate: the information border. Biosemiotics, 2(3), 321–341. doi:10.1007/s12304-009-9059-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2010). Heredity as an encoded communication process. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 56(2), 678–687. doi:10.1109/TIT.2009.2037044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2011). An answer to Schrödinger’s What is life? Biosemiotics, 4(1), 55–67. doi:10.1007/s12304-010-9102-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2012). Biology needs information theory. Biosemiotics, 6(1), 77–103. doi:10.1007/s12304-012-9152-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battail, G. (2014). Information and life. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Berrou, C., et al. (1993). Near Shannon limit error-correcting coding and decoding: turbo-codes. In Proc. of ICC’93 (pp. 1064–1070). Geneva.

  • Berrou, C., & Glavieux, A. (1996). Near optimum error-correcting coding and decoding: turbo-codes. IEEE Transactions Communication, 44(10), 1261–1271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branden, C., & Tooze, J. (1991). Introduction to protein structure. New York and London: Garland.

  • Forsdyke, D.R. (1981). Are introns in-series error-detecting sequences. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 93, 861–866.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gallager, R.G. (1962). Low-density parity-check codes. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-8, 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallager, R.G. (1963). Low-density parity-check codes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Gallager, R.G. (1968). Information theory and reliable communication. New York: Wiley.

  • Guizzo, E. (2004). Closing in on the perfect code. IEEE Spectrum, 32(3 (INT)), 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, F. (1981). Le jeu des possibles, (p. 1981). Paris: Fayard.

  • MacMillan, B. (1953). The basic theorems of information theory. Ann. Math. Stat. (pp. 196–219). Reprinted in D. Slepian (Ed.) Key papers in the development of information theory (pp. 57–80). Piscataway: IEEE Press.

  • Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (1997). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. (Vol. 27, pp. 379–457 and pp. 623–656). Reprinted in (Shannon and Weaver 1949), (N. J. A. Sloane, A. D. Wyner (Eds.) Claude Elwood Shannon, Collected papers (p. 38). IEEE Press, pp. 5–83) and in (D. Slepian (Ed.) Key papers in the development of information theory (pp. 57–80). Piscataway: IEEE Press, pp. 5–29).

  • Voss, R.F. (1992). Evolution of long-range fractal correlation and 1/f noise in DNA base sequences. Physical Review Letter, 68, 3805–3808.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wills, C. (1989). The wisdom of the genes. New pathways in evolution. New York: Basic Books.

  • Yockey, H.P. (2005). Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gérard Battail.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Battail, G. Barbieri’s Organic Codes Enable Error Correction of Genomes. Biosemiotics 7, 259–277 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9216-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-014-9216-x

Keywords

Navigation