Both of you are correct in trying to nail down what is information.
I would propose that by information we speak in terms of the instructional language of DNA.
In a mutation does the instructional language get more complex or less complex?
Huh, how much biochemistry do you know?
I do not know what “instructional language” is, but I will attempt to define it and say no.
Obviously, the “message” in DNA really do not do anything on its own. It is supposed to be “read”. Usually the DNA will not fold into a catalytically active molecule (the exceptions will be refered to as deoxyribozymes).
First, the message is read by RNA polymerase (RNA polymerase II in eukaryotes), usually a transcription factor is required for this to help the polymerase form a stable complex with DNA.
[Too lazy to add enormous amount of detail… so I’ll try to be brief]
RNA polymerase does this by using Watson-Crick base pairing (and presumably other mechanisms such as
exonucleolytic proofreading (the mechanism reported in this paper on
T. Aqaticus, the same organism where
Taq DNA polymerase used in PCR is derived from, is quite different from DNA polymerase’s mechanism.) and
using the minor groove electrons) while using nucleoside 5’ triphosphate substrates.
Next, the RNA is then spliced (if it is spliced), and capped (5’ end) and added a polyadenylate tail (3’ end) in eukaryotic organisms. The RNA might be able to splice itself and if it is able to do that we could call this transcript [insert name for catalytic RNA here].
Let’s forgot about the RNA transcript of the DNA for a while. Amino acyl tRNA synthetases catalyze these reactions:
amino acid + ATP —(Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase)—> amino acid-AMP (an amino acid adenylate) + PPi (inorganic pyrophosphate)
and
aa-AMP + tRNA -----(Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase)—> aminoacid-tRNA (an amino acid attached to the 3’ end of the tRNA) and AMP
ATP is used because forming a peptide bond ain’t a free lunch (i.e. the reaction requires a positive Gibbs free energy change).
Of course, a aminoacyl tRNA synthetase must be able to distinguish between the “correct” amino acid and tRNA. Attaching the wrong amino acid to the tRNA has detrimental consequences. However, the free energy of binding the correct substrate when compared to binding the incorrect amino acid does not ensure accuracy. This is corrected by some aminoacyl tRNA synthetases by having an additional site that hydrolysizes the incorrect aa-AMP complex or the ester linkage on the aa-tRNA complex.
Returning our transcript, the “start codon”, 5’ AUG 3’ , initiate the assembly of the ribosome. The tRNAs then read the transcript and the ribosome, a [insert term for a catalytic RNA molecule here], synthesizes a protein from the amino-carboxyl end. The protein then folds (sometimes with the assistence of a chaperone) after it is synthesized. Protein folding is quite complex but involved the interaction of hydrophobic residues, formation of salt bridges, and hydrogen bonding. Also covalent dicysteine linkages are involved giving the tertiary structure.
Long story short the instructional language is not really a language in the usual sense, it is simply amino acid residues in various enzymes interacting with its substrates. Any anthropomorphization is merely a pedagogical device.
To answer the question, it seems unlikely that the instructional language will change with a single mutation: DNA and RNA polymerases will still copy nucleic acids using Watson-Crick pairing, aminoacyl tRNA synthetases will be able to discern the incorrect and the correct tRNAs and amino acids, the ribosome will synthesize proteins using tRNAs, etc. Single mutations do affect this with detrimental consequences in the context of fidelity and phenotype, but these mutations are unable to profoundly affect the “instructional language”.
If I should source something, just ask me too… I have some interesting (“interesting” is a subjective word) papers on my computer to support these statements.
hehehe
