Keep Factually independent

Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.

Loading...Goal: 1,000 supporters
Loading...

Is it impossible for organisms to gain completely new genetic code

Checked on November 20, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important info or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

It is not impossible for organisms to acquire changes in their genetic code: natural life already shows variants and researchers have engineered cells with altered codes and expanded amino acid repertoires [1] [2] [3]. Laboratory work in "genetic code expansion" (GCE) demonstrates active, reproducible ways to reassign codons and incorporate non‑canonical amino acids; surveys of genomes find natural alternative codes in microbes [3] [1].

1. Natural exceptions: the genetic code is mostly universal — but not absolute

Biologists once treated the genetic code as a single universal table mapping 61 codons to 20 amino acids, but large-scale surveys have documented multiple natural deviations, especially among bacteria and archaea. A screen of >250,000 genomes uncovered previously unknown alternate codes, showing evolution can and has produced different codon assignments [1]. HHMI’s Codetta program likewise deciphers diverse genetic codes across microbes, arguing variability is real and discoverable [4].

2. Evolutionary pathways: how new codes can arise in nature

Researchers argue code changes can happen stepwise: shifts in tRNA identity, aminoacyl‑tRNA synthetase specificity, or loss/gain of release factors can reassign which amino acid a codon encodes. The discovery of alternate codes across many genomes implies multiple evolutionary routes exist for reassignment under selection or drift [1] [4]. Available sources do not present a single locked‑in mechanism that makes change impossible.

3. Synthetic biology: humans are already rewriting the code

Laboratory teams have created microbes whose translational systems differ markedly from natural ones. For example, work creating strains of E. coli with reduced codon sets (Syn61 and derivatives) shows cells can survive with codon deletions and be engineered to use codons differently — a practical demonstration that the code can be rewritten in the lab [2]. Reviews and experimental literature on genetic code expansion describe systematic methods to incorporate non‑canonical amino acids into proteins, using engineered tRNAs and synthetases to repurpose codons [3] [5].

4. Tools and trends accelerating code redesign

Advances in AI models that predict mutation effects and in multi‑omic sequencing improve both our understanding and engineering of translation. Large models like Evo 2 can model genetic effects across life, aiding design of altered codes; multiomics tools reveal regulatory and non‑coding contexts that may matter for viability of engineered codes [6] [7]. Reviews and methodological papers on tRNA engineering and orthogonal synthetase–tRNA pairs outline practical strategies for reliable incorporation of non‑standard amino acids [8] [3].

5. Practical limits, tradeoffs and open questions

Although change is possible, it is technically challenging and carries costs. Engineering a new code requires reworking many interacting components (tRNAs, synthetases, release factors, genome recoding) to avoid misincorporation and proteome disruption; reviews on GCE and tRNA engineering catalogue these obstacles and optimization needs [3] [8]. The New York Times coverage emphasizes both the accomplishment of creating radically altered bacteria and the complexity involved in “whittling” codons away [2]. Available sources do not claim a simple, universal recipe to convert any organism’s code without extensive redesign.

6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas

Academic teams emphasize discovery and understanding of alternative codes in nature [1] [4], while synthetic‑biology groups and reviews highlight applied opportunities — making designer proteins, biocontainment, or new therapeutics — which attracts industrial and funding interests [3] [2]. AI and multiomics vendors emphasize tools (Evo 2, SDR‑seq) that accelerate design and interpretation, which can bias reporting toward technological promise [6] [7]. Readers should weigh enthusiastic accounts of capability against technical reviews that document remaining constraints [3] [8].

7. Bottom line for the original question

The claim that it is "impossible" for organisms to gain completely new genetic code is contradicted by current evidence: nature contains alternate genetic codes in microbes [1] [4], and scientists have engineered organisms with altered codon usage and incorporated non‑canonical amino acids via GCE approaches [2] [3]. However, doing so broadly and safely across complex multicellular organisms remains experimentally difficult and requires overcoming many interdependent molecular systems — a limitation clearly discussed in technical reviews [3] [8].

Want to dive deeper?
Can organisms naturally evolve novel genetic code changes beyond the universal code?
Have any organisms been discovered with nonstandard or synthetic genetic codes in nature or lab settings?
What mechanisms allow genetic code reassignment or expansion in organisms?
What are the limits and consequences of adding new nucleotides or amino acids to life’s genetic system?
How do synthetic biology projects create organisms with altered or expanded genetic codes and what risks do they pose?