abstract: A dynamical theory for the evolution of the genetic code is presented, which accounts for its universality and optimality. The central concept is that a variety of collective, but non-Darwinian, mechanisms likely to be present in early communal life generically lead to refinement and selection of innovation-sharing protocols, such as the genetic code. Our proposal is illustrated using a simplified computer model, and placed within the context of a sequence of transitions that early life may have made, prior to the emergence of vertical descent.
author: Kalin Vetsigian; Carl Woese; Nigel Goldenfeld
bibliography: refs.bib
date: 2024-10-03
title: Collective evolution and the genetic code

The genetic code could well be optimized to a greater extent than anything else in biology, yet is generally regarded as the biological element least capable of evolving.

There would seem to be four reasons for this paradoxical situation, all of which reflect the reductionist molecular perspective that so shaped biological thought throughout the 20th century. First, the basic explanation of gene expression appears to lie in its *evolution*, and not primarily in the specific structural or stereochemical considerations that are sufficient to account for gene replication. Second, the problem's motto, ''genetic code", is a misnomer that makes the codon table the defining issue of gene expression. A satisfactory level of understanding of the gene should provide a unifying account of replication and expression as two sides of the same coin. The genetic code is merely the linkage between these two facets. Thus, and thirdly, the assumption that the code and the decoding mechanism are separate problems, individually solvable, is a reductionist fallacy that serves to deny the fundamental biological nature of the problem. Finally, the evolutionary dynamic that gave rise to translation is undoubtedly non-Darwinian, to most an unthinkable notion that we now need to entertain seriously. These four considerations structure the approach we take in this paper.

To this point in time, biologists have seen the universality of the code as either a manifestation of the Doctrine of Common Descent or simply as a ''frozen accident". Viewing universality as following from common descent renders unthinkable the notion explored here that a universal code may be a necessary pre-condition for common ancestry—indeed even for life as we know it. We will argue in this paper—a maturation of the earlier concept of the progenote—that the very fact of the code's evolvability, together with the details of its internal structure, provide strong clues to the nature of early life, and in particular its essential communal character.

Beyond the code's universality we have very few clues to guide us in trying to understand its evolution and that of the underlying decoding mechanism. The principal ones again are properties of the code itself; specifically, the obvious structure of the codon table. The table possesses (at least) two types of order: synonym order and relatedness order. The first is the relatedness of codons assigned to the same amino acid; the second the relatedness of codons assigned to related amino acids. Relatedness among the amino acids is context dependent, and in the context of the codon table could *a priori* reflect almost anything about the amino acids: their various properties, either individually or in combination; the several macromolecular contexts in which they are found, such as protein structure, the translation mechanism, the evolution of translation; or the pre-translational context of the so-called RNA-world. Although we don't know what defines amino acid ''similarity" in the case of the code, we do know one particular amino acid measure that seems to express it quite remarkably in the coding context. That measure is amino acid polar requirement. While the relatedness order of the code is marginally evident from simple inspection of the codon table, it is pronounced when the amino acids are represented by their respective polar requirements.

A major advance was provided by computer simulation studies of the relatedness ordering of the amino acids over the codon table, which showed that the code is indeed relationally ordered, and moreover is optimized to near the maximum extent possible. Compared to randomly-generated codes, the canonical code is ''one in a million" when the relatedness measure is the polar requirement. No other amino acid measure is known to possess this characteristic (in our opinion, the significance of this observation has not been adequately recognized or pursued). These precisely-defined relatedness constraints in the codon table were unexpected, and still cry out for explanation.

As far as interpretation goes, the optimal aspect of the genetic code is surely a reflection of the last aspect of the coding problem that needs to be brought into consideration: namely, the precision or biological specificity with which translation functions. Precision, along with every aspect of the genetic code, needs to be understood as part of an evolutionary process. We would contend that at early stages in cellular evolution ambiguous translation was tolerated (there being no alternative), and was an important and essential part of the evolutionary dynamic (see below). What we imply by ambiguity here is inherent in the concept of group codon assignments, where a group of related codons is assigned as a whole to a corresponding group of related amino acids. From this flows the concept of a ''statistical protein", wherein a given gene can be translated not into a unique protein, but instead into a family of related protein sequences. Note that we do not say that these are an approximation to a perfect translation of the gene, thereby implying that these sequences are in some sense erroneous. Early life did not require a refined level of tolerance, and so there was no need for a perfect translation. Ambiguity is therefore not the same thing as ''error".

The phylogenetic expression of ambiguity is reticulate evolution. In reticulate evolution, there is no unique notion of genealogical descent: genetic content can be distributed collectively. Accordingly, as we now turn the emphasis away from the documentation of the static features of the genetic code, and towards their evolutionary origins, we must necessarily invoke an evolutionary dynamic distinct from that identified originally by Darwin. This dynamic can be seen as a kind of biological game in which both the players and the rules of play are unfamiliar, at least in the non-microbial world. The players are cell-like entities still in early stages of their evolutions. The evolutionary dynamic (the ''rules") involve communal descent. The key element in this dynamic is *innovation-sharing*, an evolutionary protocol whereby descent with variation from one '' generation" to the next is not genealogically traceable, but is a descent of a cellular community as a whole. Even if an organismal ancestry were to some extent traceable, it would have no significance, because it is the community *as a unit*, not the individual organismal lineages therein, that vary in descent.

The purpose of this paper is to show that evolvability, universality and optimality can all be understood naturally and comprehensively, but not within a framework of strictly vertical evolution. Specifically, we will herein model the evolution of translation, the codon table, the constraints therein, the universality of the code and the decoding mechanism, not as a sum of parts, but as a whole. This paper is the first in a series that attempts to present such a comprehensive model: subsequent articles will focus more on the decoding mechanism, but here we focus primarily on innovation-sharing. The central conjecture in our model is that innovation sharing, which involves horizontal transfer of genes and perhaps other complex elements among the evolving entities—a dynamic far more rampant and pervasive than our current perception of horizontal gene transfer—is required to bring the evolving translation apparatus, its code and by implication the cell itself to their current condition.

*Our point of view alleviates the need for any assumption of a unique common ancestor.* We argue that the universality of the code is a *generic consequence* of early communal evolution mediated by horizontal gene transfer (HGT), and that HGT enhances optimality. Our arguments are backed up by computer simulation studies, which are necessary in order to probe the complex interactions between the variety of collective mechanisms that we shall present. We show that there are virtuous cycles of cooperativity: 1) the more similar the genetic codes are, the greater the intensity of horizontal gene transfer is, and the stronger is the tendency for codes to become more similar; 2) horizontal gene transfer helps the codes to optimize, and optimization enforces universality and compatibility between translational machineries. These cooperative dynamics arise because of the dual role played by the genetic code: it is not only a protocol for encoding amino acid sequences in the genome but also an innovation-sharing protocol. Here we identify two synergistically interacting mechanisms for the emergence of a universal innovation-sharing protocol: dynamic competition between protocols favoring the popular ones and effective attraction of codes due to exchange of protein coding regions. Other mechanisms are also possible, and will be discussed elsewhere.

If Darwin had been a microbiologist, he surely would not have pictured a ''struggle" for existence as ''red in tooth and claw". Our view of competition in a communal world as a dynamical process is very different from the widely-understood notion of Darwinian evolution. ''Survival of the fittest" literally implies that there can only be one winner from the forces of selection, whereas in a communal world, the entire distributed community benefits and its structure becomes modified by the forces of a selection that is an inherently biocomplex phenomenon involving the dynamics between the community elements and the interaction with the environment. The most general sense in which we mean competition in this article is the complex dynamical rearrangement of the community structure.

Our framework fits naturally the recently proposed picture that early evolution was dominated by horizontal gene transfer, as evidenced by detailed phylogenetic, biochemical and structural analyses of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. The broader implication of this scenario is that innovation sharing led to the emergence of modern cell designs from a communal state - not a unique, shared ancestor. Such a communal state existed prior to the point of emergence of vertical evolution, which has been termed the Darwinian transition. The defining property of the communal state was that it was capable of tolerating and utilizing ambiguity, as reflected in the pervasive role of horizontal gene transfer. A Darwinian transition corresponds to a state of affairs when sufficient complexity has arisen that the state is incapable of tolerating ambiguity, and so there is a distinct change in the nature of the evolutionary dynamics—to vertical descent. We envision that such Darwinian transitions occurred in each of the three major lineages. The present work does not address the Darwinian transition itself, but explains how the communal state could have arisen in the first place: in our scenario, it is the inevitable by-product of the establishment of an innovation-sharing protocol—the genetic code—leading to the explosive growth of complexity. Thus, we may speculate that the emergence of life should best be viewed in three phases, distinguished by the nature of their evolutionary dynamics. In the first phase, treated in the present paper, life was very robust to ambiguity, but there was no fully-unified innovation-sharing protocol. The ambiguity in this stage led inexorably to a dynamic from which a universal, and optimized innovation-sharing protocol emerged, through a cooperative mechanism. In the second phase, the community rapidly developed complexity through the frictionless exchange of novelty enabled by the genetic code—a dynamic we recognize to be patently Lamarckian. With the increasing level of complexity there arose necessarily a lower tolerance of ambiguity, leading finally to a transition to a state wherein communal dynamics had to be suppressed and refinement superseded innovation. This Darwinian transition led to the third phase, which was dominated by vertical descent and characterized by the slow, and tempered accumulation of complexity.

# Universality and HGT

Previous arguments about universality rely on the existence of a universal common ancestor with a frozen code. A detailed deconstruction of such arguments is presented in the Supplementary Material, and further supported by the computer simulations presented in Section (), but the unambiguous conclusion is that vertical descent on its own is insufficient to explain the universality of the genetic code. Here we present an alternative: the universality of the genetic code is a generic consequence of the communal evolution of early life. HGT of protein coding regions and HGT of translational components ensures the emergence of clusters of similar codes and compatible translational machineries. Different clusters compete for niches, and due to the benefits of the communal evolution, the only stable solution of the cluster dynamics is universality. Within clusters, concerted optimization of codes is possible. These mechanisms are consistent with two macroevolutionary scenarios: 1) the code stayed nearly universal at all times, 2) The codes diverged at first but then gradually became universal.

## Competition between innovation pools

One of the advantages of communal evolution is that universally good traits and refinements can spread through HGT to organisms occupying different niches, preserving their diversity. In a world increasingly dominated by protein, most innovations would involve them, and correspondingly HGT will be most effective between organisms having the same genetic code. In this way, the organisms sort into communities sharing related genetic codes. A single code community can span cells adapted to different niches and with different organization.

The larger the community and diversity of organisms sharing the same code, the larger is the pool of protein innovations accessible to everyone. This leads to faster evolution among the larger communities than the smaller ones, and therefore a greater potential to invade niches occupied by organisms with different incompatible genetic codes. With this dynamics larger communities will tend to become even larger at the expense of smaller ones. The only stable solution is a universal genetic code. Thus, it is not better genetic codes that give an advantage but more common ones.

The elementary step in this process is the overtaking of an occupied niche by the descendants of an organism with a different genetic code. If two groups of organisms compete with each other, the one that has access to more innovations (the one belonging to the larger community of common/compatible genetic codes) will on average out compete the other. In contrast to the case with only vertical evolution, there is an active feedback loop, driven by innovation sharing through HGT, which not only singles out the genetic code from all other properties of a cell, but also provides a mechanism that drives competition between codes.

This mechanism—referred to below as ''competition between innovation pools" or CIP—assumes that the protocols are fixed. But how did the protocols themselves emerge and evolve? How can a protocol be upgraded without destroying it?

## Code attraction and optimization due to HGT of protein coding regions

A population of organisms occupying a niche is subject to spontaneous code mutations, and is bombarded by foreign genetic material from organisms occupying different niches. Horizontally transferred genes can be useful for the recipient even if the donor has a (somewhat) different code. For example, the codon usage (e.g. synonym codon usage frequency) of a transferred gene is adapted to the donor code and therefore different from that of the recipient. Correspondingly, there will be indirect pressure for the recipient code to readjust itself to make a better use of the new gene.

We expect that the code response would involve several characteristic time scales. On the long scale, the direction of change is to reduce ambiguity, but on the short scale the code must be able to tolerate a greater level of ambiguity while ingesting new genes. The means available to the cell to detune the level of precision of translation may be considered to be of two essential origins: those internal to the cell, and those which are communal, reflecting the influence of the environment and neighbouring cells. Mechanisms internal to the cell include change in tRNA expression levels and detuning of the ribosomal machinery itself, as is known to occur through variations in Mg ion concentration, antibiotics, and structural mutations. Communal mechanisms are likely to involve the import of tRNA from other organisms. The increase on the short time scale in translational ambiguity is compensated for on the same time scale by the beneficial effects of the new gene. Eventually the codon and amino acid usage of the newly transferred segment will equilibrate with the rest of the genome and the indirect pressure of the donor code on the recipient code will disappear, while leaving behind its accumulated effects.

In somewhat more detail, these arguments indicate that, after a HGT event, the genetic code of the donor influences the genetic code of the acceptor. Given an alien gene, the host-alien gene system undergoes a cyclical dynamical process leading to full utilization of the new gene. In one part of the cycle, the host detunes its own code for purposes of recognizing the alien code; an example of such a detuning process has been documented in streptomycin-dependent mutants and ribosomal ambiguity mutants in bacteria. In the other part of the cycle, the alien gene codons are mutated to conform to the host code. This process results in the detection with greater precision of the alien signal. A snapshot of this process would reveal a genome as a mosaic of horizontally transferred fragments from other genomes with different characteristic patterns of codon usage. However, these are only the tip of the iceberg: beyond codon usage are the subtle but important changes in amino-acyl tRNA synthetase precision and the ambiguity level of the translational mechanism itself.

The interaction between the genetic codes is attractive. Typically, the closer the translation of a foreign coding region is to that in the donor, the higher is the probability that it is functional. Therefore, the selective pressure will be to change codons of the recipient code in the direction of the donor code, even if only in a probabilistic fashion. The dynamical outcome of this attraction must be uniformization. This expectation is confirmed by the computer simulations presented below.

HGT requires that the genetic codes of the host and the recipient are sufficiently similar, but how similar is sufficient depends on the nature of the proteins and the overall accuracy of decoding. There are strong reasons to believe that the more primitive the code of the donor is, the greater is the genetic code distance over which HGT is possible. This is because the tolerance of the proteins to errors in their primary structure is coadapted to the error rates of the translational machinery. A cell with a non-optimal code cannot afford very capricious and therefore highly fine-tuned proteins because of the cost of discarding defective proteins. A protein that is robust to translational errors *a fortiori* is also more tolerant to translation with a different code. Conversely, the less optimized the recipient code is, the more error-tolerant its proteins are, and therefore the less harmful will be the effect on the established genes of a code change in the direction of the donor code. This has the important consequence that in the initial stages of the genetic code evolution, when the diversification tendency of codes was strongest, HGT was possible and must have been extensive despite the presence of many different codes.

## HGT of translational components

To this point, our discussion has managed to avoid the specifics of how the genetic code is implemented in hardware, as it were. However, we cannot ignore the possibility that the translational components themselves benefited from HGT, and we now turn to this briefly. A fuller account will be given elsewhere.

The genetic code is a representation of a family of modules, which are universal across all organisms, and are specified by the mechanisms of translation, such as tRNAs and charging enzymes (aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases in a modern day setting). The task of improving translation and the code is also universal, i.e. largely insensitive to the niches organisms are occupying. So is it possible that *HGT of translational components* played an important role in the evolution of the codes? Is there any significance in the functional separation between the translational machinery (the ribosome) and the code specificators (tRNAs and charging enzymes)? Imagine for simplicity a situation in which organisms occupying diverse niches have the same malleable genetic code and ensembles of tRNAs. The discovery of a tRNA modification that changes the code and increases its optimality (and therefore the efficiency of translation) in one organism will also be beneficial for organisms in the other niches, due to the universal benefit of optimality. Therefore, a spread of the discovery is beneficial to all recipients, and can be assumed to occur through various HGT mechanisms including via active elements such as viruses and plasmids.

Therefore, if the spread through HGT is rapid compared to innovations, a core of organisms having the same genetic code can maintain its integrity while evolving towards optimality. Notice that this mechanism does not rely on common ancestry and preserves the diversity of the organisms. Moreover, this mechanism is distinct from any survival of any ''fittest" species. In the absence of an attractive force that restrains deviant codes, this core of organisms would become depleted, if there was any circumstance that prevented a code update from invading specific populations. If the depletion is slow enough, the deviants will be at a communal disadvantage and disappear as described in section . The depletion mechanism will compete against an expansion of the core due to the benefit of a common protocol shared by a large population.

## Diversification of the translation mechanism

The special role of the genetic code as an innovation-sharing protocol leads to a possible observational consequence. In a core community of organisms that is in the process of code optimization, the compatibility of code specificators is enforced. Once the optimization of the genetic code is complete, there is no pressure to maintain compatibility. Therefore the ''freezing" of the universal genetic code could trigger the radiation of the underlying translational machineries. So, even if translation emerged earlier than the other basic cellular systems, but the optimization of the code took an extended time, the translational componentry would have diversified less. This is consistent with the observation that the translation mechanism is more conserved evolutionary than the replication and transcription ones. Although we do not have a complete understanding of the Darwinian transition , our argument suggests that code universality and optimality were necessary but not sufficient mechanisms for the transition to vertical evolution.

## Interactions between HGT mechanisms

The different collective mechanisms enabled by HGT and outlined above are also capable of synergistically interacting with each other.

We saw above that the evolutionary expansion of the most popular cluster of codes provides the necessary support for the maintenance of an otherwise weakly depleting universal core. The opposite is also true. The CIP mechanism is ineffective if there are no clusters of sufficient size on which it can operate. The establishment of such clusters is greatly facilitated by the HGT of code specificators and protein coding regions. Distribution of modules enforces modularity that in turn enforces the distribution of modules. Similarly, exchange of protein coding regions enforces universality, thus making it easier to exchange genes. Therefore, there are positive feedback loops that provide at least *local stability* to the protocols, and turn them into effective degrees of freedom at a longer time scale. The *global stability* and universality is then guaranteed by the ''winner takes all" nature of the CIP.

HGT of code specificators and protein coding regions interact not only through the CIP mechanism but directly as well. If an organism obtains a gene from another niche, its place in the ecosystem is such that it has potential contact with the genetic material of the donor. Therefore, the recipient has a better than random chance to obtain the right code specificator from the donor as well, before the special codon usage of a recently acquired trait drifts. The exchange of code specificators provides a channel through which codes can become more similar in response to the attraction of codes due to exchange of protein coding regions.

In summary, it is the interaction between the different mechanisms outlined above that makes the emergence and maintenance of universality robust. At the same time, due to the complexity of the problem it is useful to study the different components in isolation as well.

## HGT and the observed statistical properties of the genetic code

So far, we have argued that HGT and the special role of the genetic code as an innovation-sharing protocol alleviate the conceptual difficulties in understanding the simultaneous universality and evolvability of the genetic code. Does this improved understanding help us explain some of the statistical features of the modern genetic code? And how can we expose the signatures of the above mechanisms that are buried in the functional and structural design of the translational system and its phylogenetic variations?

To address this, one needs to complement the above generic mechanisms with insight about the elementary evolutionary changes of the genetic code. Our goal in the remainder of this paper is to attempt to identify robust or generic statistical properties of translation that arise from our proposed evolutionary mechanisms, but which are relatively insensitive to fine details. To begin, we model the code attraction mechanism and ask: what is the effect of HGT on the optimality of the genetic code?

We employ genetic code dynamics similar to that first introduced by Sella and Ardell . The main feature is the coevolution between the genetic code and codon usage at different functional sites. The code determines the codon usage at mutation selection equilibrium. In turn, the codon usage determines the fitness costs or benefits of the accessible code changes, thus guiding the code's evolution. Code changes that are beneficial given the typical codon usage of a population can invade it. To account for HGT we couple the evolution of different codes by postulating that a fraction of each genome consists of pieces coming from other genomes.

The virtue of Sella and Ardell's model is that it is a closed model of the evolution of the genetic code, and shows that the evolvability barrier is surmountable in a protein dominated world. Its shortcoming is that it does not address the fact that translation is a dynamical process, with competition between its various components. This means that the Sella and Ardell model on its own is not adequate to identify generic statistical signatures of the evolutionary mechanisms of translation, because the statistical properties of the code and the structure of the translational system are precisely the stable resolutions of the design tradeoffs and evolutionary conflicts inherent to translation.

The code attraction mechanism that we use at this point is also insensitive to the implementation of translation, and so has the same shortcoming. Thus, combining it with Sella and Ardell's model we will still not be able to address all evolutionary aspects of the problem. Nevertheless, such a model, while admittedly too simple for our ultimate goals, can, encouragingly, still explain the universality and optimality of the genetic code. The only key aspect of translation that it is necessary to incorporate, even if by introducing it by hand, is mistranslation.

At a next level in the hierarchy of models, one needs to incorporate the tRNAs as agents of both the collective molecular effort of translation and the communal evolution of the genetic codes. In contrast to the above, in such models mistranslation would become a dynamical variable that emerges from the competition itself. This lower level of description entails a richer suite of observational outcomes, and provides a unique and essential role for the organism as a resource manager and conflict regulator for the various dynamical processes within it.

# Model of code attraction due to HGT

We first describe the modeling of the genetic code and mistranslation errors, then define the proteome structure and the reproductive success of genomes as a function of their codon sequences. We show how to compute the probability distribution of codons at different functional sites at mutation selection equilibrium. Finally we present a simulation algorithm which incorporates HGT.

The genetic code is a probabilistic map $Prob(c \rightarrow \alpha)$ between codons and amino acids. The map is probabilistic because the charging of tRNAs with particular amino acids and the decoding of codons through competition of tRNAs are probabilistic molecular events. Quite generally, $$Prob(c \rightarrow \alpha)  = \sum_t{T_{ct} C_{t\alpha}},$$ where $T_{ct}$ is the probability that a codon $c$ is read by tRNA species $t$, and $C_{t\alpha}$ is the probability that it is charged with amino acid $\alpha$. Assuming one-to-one mapping between tRNA species and codons, equal concentrations of different tRNAs, and ignoring mischarging we set $$Prob(c \rightarrow \alpha)
= \sum_{c'}T_{cc'}\delta_{aa(c'), \alpha},$$ where the sum is over the codons and $T_{cc'}=\nu/9$ if $c$ and $c'$ are nearest neighbors, $T_{cc}=1-\nu$ and $T_{cc'}=0$ otherwise, with $\nu$ being the *mistranslation rate*. (9 is the number of neighbors for codons consisting of three letters and an alphabet of size 4.) $aa(c)$ is a map between the codons and amino acids, which will be referred to as the *code*.

A genome is a sequence of codons that is translated to an amino acid sequence. Each genome position $x$ belongs to a *site type* $s(x)$. A site type $s$ is characterized by the *fitness score* $W_{\alpha\,s}$ of the different amino acids that can be present at that site. The matrix $W$, together with the frequencies $\left\{L_s\right\}$ of the different site types in the genome, constitutes the *structure of the proteome*. Assuming that amino acid substitutions at different genome positions have independent effects on fitness, we construct the *proteome fitness score* $$A\Bigl(\bigl\{\alpha(x)\bigr\}\Bigr)= \prod_x W_{\alpha(x), s(x)},$$ where the product is over all genome positions and $\alpha(x)$ is the amino acid at position $x$.

Since different positions belonging to the same site type are phenotypically indistinguishable in the model, we can describe the genome by the matrix $\{u_{sc}\}$ that specifies the frequency of codon $c$ among sites of type $s$.

Accommodating the probabilistic nature of translation, we set the fitness of a genome to be the average of the proteome fitness score over many translations, i.e. $f = \langle A
\rangle$. Since translations of different codons are independent $$f \Bigl(\{c(x)\}, code \Bigr)= \prod_x \langle W_{\alpha(x), s(x)}
\rangle \equiv \prod_x{F_{s(x), c(x)}} \:.$$ Putting everything together and switching from codon sequence to codon usage representation, we end up with $$f\left(code, \{u\}\right) =
\prod_c\prod_s\left\{\sum_{c'}{T_{cc'}W_{aa(c'),
s}}\right\}^{L_s\,u_{sc}} \: . \label{fitness}$$

Given the matrix of mutational effects $\{F_{sc}(code)\}$, defined above, what is the codon usage $\{u_{sc}\}$ in an asexual population of an infinite size and large genomes at a mutation selection equilibrium? Mutational pressure is characterized by the matrix $M_{cc'}$ specifying the probability that codon $c$ will mutate into codon $c'$ in one generation. It is assumed independent of the site type and genome position. Any mutational biases could be incorporated in $M_{cc'}$. Here we focus on equally probable single nucleotide changes. In this case, $M$ is specified by a single parameter $\mu$ which is the probability for a mutation at a given site in one generation. Following Sella and Ardell , the codon usage at a site of type $s$ is given by the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the matrix $$Q_{cc'}^{(s)} \equiv M_{cc'} F_{sc'} \:. \label{Q_matrix}$$ The matrix $Q$ reflects the application of selection followed by mutation.

The parameters of the model described above are: $N_s$ - the number of site types, $N_a$ - the number of amino acids, the $N_a \times N_s$ matrix $W$, a vector $\{L_s\}$, specifying the relative frequencies of the different site types, the mutation rate $\mu$ and the mistranslation rate $\nu$.

Now we consider an ensemble of populations with different codes and present the dynamics:

1.  There are $N$ entities, each with its own genetic code $aa(c)$ and codon usage $u_{sc}$.

2.  At each step an entity, the acceptor, and $K$ random donor entities are chosen at random. The acceptor codon usage is updated according to the rule $$(1 - \frac{H}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K{p_k} )\,u_{si} + \frac{H}{K}\,
    \sum_{k=1}^K p_k u_{si}^{(k)}\longrightarrow u_{si} \ ,$$ where $u_{si}^{(k)}$ is the codon usage of donor $k$, and $p_k$ is some measure of the compatibility between the donor and acceptor codes expressing the probability of acceptance. Here, we study the case with *no barrier to HGT* of coding regions, i.e. $p_k = 1$. $H$ is the fraction of the acceptor genome that is a mosaic due to HGT.

3.  We attempt to change the code of the acceptor. We examine in random order the possible *elementary changes* of the $code$ until we find one that is acceptable or exhaust all the possibilities. We accept a candidate change if it increases or at least preserves the fitness , calculated using the mosaic codon usage $\{u_{sc}\}$ and equation . An elementary code change reassigns a single codon to a different amino acid.

4.  We equilibrate the acceptor codon usage by finding the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest eigenvalues of the matrices $Q^{s}$.

5.  We repeat the cycle.

The CIP mechanism, which clearly facilitates universality (and given enough time generically leads to universality), is factored out from the simulations in order to concentrate on the code attraction mechanism. Each evolving entity in the ensemble can be thought of as a different ''species" (or ecotype). While within each species the evolution proceeds through invasions of code variants with higher fitness, the different species are stable and their number is fixed, thus blocking the CIP mechanism.

# Results

## Genetic code coevolution towards optimality and universality

We evolved ensembles of codes with and without HGT and measured the time evolution of the average distance between codes and the distribution of optimality scores. We compare the optimality scores with the corresponding distribution for randomly generated codes. The ensemble of randomly generated codes is constructed by assigning random amino acids to the codons. Initially all the codes are identical, and the initial code is generated by randomly assigning amino acids to the codons.

The average code distance is obtained by considering all pairs of entities with equal weight. The code distance between two entities is the Hamming distance, which counts the numbers of codons that code for different amino acids.

We define the optimality score of a code as the average amino acid similarity distance between neighboring codons $$\sum_c\sum_{c'} {N_{cc'} S_{aa(c),aa(c')}} \ ,
\label{optimality_score}$$ where $N_{cc'}$ is 1 if codons $c$ and $c'$ differ by a single letter and zero otherwise. $S$ is an the amino acid similarity matrix defined as follows: $$S_{\alpha\beta} = \sum_s{|W_{\alpha,s} - W_{\beta,s}|} \ .$$

Figure presents the simulation results for the following parameters: $N=80$, $N_a=N_s=20$, $64$ codons, $\mu = 10^{-4}$, $\nu
= 0.01$, $W_{\alpha\beta}=\phi^{|A_{\alpha}-A_{\beta}|}$ with $\{A_{\alpha}\}$ being uniformly distributed random numbers in the interval $(0,1)$ and $\phi=0.99$. The HGT parameters are $H=0.4$ and $K=1$.

The left panel - A, demonstrates that HGT of coding regions not only brings universality but greatly enhances the joint ability of the codes to optimize. Comparison with the distribution of optimality scores for random codes, right panel - B, shows that, in the presence of HGT, the achieved optimality is highly significant. Thus in a qualitative way, we have provided a dynamical mechanism that would give rise to the statistical properties of the genetic code identified in .

The inset C shown that without HGT the codes diversify form each other. However, when HGT is present the tendency to diversify is eventually reversed and the codes get attracted to each other, gradually achieving near universality. It should be stressed that the probability for achieving universality, in the absence of the CIP mechanism, depends on $H$, and is equal to one above a threshold. While $H$ is a constant in this set of simulations, the discussion in suggests that it is in fact a dynamical variable that is initially large and gradually decreases as better translation allows the evolution of a protein network with more specific interactions.

We interpret these results as supporting two key concepts that underlie the arguments in this paper. First and foremost is the role of communal evolution in leading to a universal genetic code. Vertical or Darwinian evolution does not lead to a reduction in the distance between codes. This is seen from the long time behavior of the red curves in A. Only the incorporation of HGT gives rise to code convergence, as shown by the long time behaviour of the blue curves in A: they get closer together with time. In a sense, a Darwinian (genealogical) evolution would get trapped, or perhaps, frozen into metastable states. Second is the role of communal evolution in leading to an optimal code. Vertical or Darwinian evolution gets frozen into non-optimal states, whereas with HGT, the code becomes optimized to a much greater extent. This is seen by comparing the final values of the Darwinian evolution (red) curves and the communal evolution (blue) curves with the vertical axis of B. Communal evolution results in a genetic code that is much further from the mean of random distributions than the results of Darwinian evolution.

# Conclusions

With this work, we have revisited the largely-overlooked problem of genetic code universality and the conceptual difficulties associated with it. These difficulties can all be avoided if one takes, as we do, the stance that evolution was essentially communal from the very beginning. We have argued that there are three distinct stages of evolution, which we might classify as: (I) Weak communal evolution, which gave way via development of an innovation-sharing protocol and the emergence of a universal genetic code to (II) Strong communal evolution, which developed exponential complexity of genes, finally leading via the Darwinian transition to (III) Individual evolution—vertical and so, Darwinian.

Most of our analysis explored the transition between regimes I and II, through detailed consideration of the way in which a generalized form of HGT operating on long evolutionary time scales brings universality via dynamic competition between a wide variety of collective innovation-sharing protocols. In particular, we argued how such protocols emerge through the important coevolutionary mechanism of code attraction, and presented a specific model that is capable of explaining the simultaneous universality and optimality of the genetic code.

The genetic code is an expression of the translation process, and therefore its state and significance reflect the various stages in the evolutionary development of translation and the organization of the cell. Thus, a fuller account of the evolution of the genetic code requires modeling physical components of the translational apparatus, including the dynamics of tRNAs and the amino-acyl tRNA synthetases. Only with this level of description is it possible to address issues, such as the special role played by the polar requirement. This latter point is, we believe, an essential clue to the early evolution of translational components, when the genetic code presumably had a rather different function.

Evolution of the genetic code, translation and cellular organization itself follows a dynamic whose mode is, if anything, Lamarkian.

# Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Patrick O'Donoghue, Gary Olsen, Yoshi Oono, Zan Luthey-Schulten and Matt Gordon for many insightful discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through grant number NSF-0526747.

# Supplementary Material

## Universality without HGT

*Freezing before diversification:-* A possible sequence of events leading to a frozen code Crick and Wong is that translation emerged, the code optimized itself and froze in a single niche, and only then did some other evolutionary transition trigger the spread and diversification of its organisms. The code is universal by virtue of competition and genetic drift between organisms occupying this single niche. Or, perhaps, in a localized ecosystem, there was more than one frozen code, but it was a single lineage that diversified, conquering a world that was either unoccupied or inhabited by inferior organisms lacking translation. The original ecosystem was marginalized and the rest of the codes were stochastically lost during the expansion. So, the universality of the code is a result of a large scale ''founder" effect.

The problem with this *freezing before diversification* scenario is that it does not explain what was stopping the expansion of organisms endowed with some form of translation well before the genetic code froze. The evolution of translation and the refinement of the genetic code was most likely a multi-stage process that took an extended period of time.

The alternative to *freezing before diversification* is *freezing after diversification*. Even without understanding how codes evolve, it is reasonable to assume that they eventually freeze. Let's look at the first moment of time when all organisms have frozen codes. The codes diversified along with all other organism properties, so we have many somewhat different codes and perhaps even some organisms that do not have translation at all. How do we get from this situation to a universal code? We now outline a variety of logically allowed possibilities, explaining their merits and drawbacks.

*Stochastic universality:-* The universal genetic code is a simple consequence of the fact that after an extended period of time, all organisms will be descendants of a single organism and will inherit its genetic code. This happens for stochastic reasons: the descendants of an organism can invade a neighboring niche, and by mere chance outcompete the organisms that were already there. Since the entire phenotype space is connected, the repeated stochastic takeover of neighboring niches will result eventually in a universe inhabited by organisms with a common ancestor. The problem here is that because of the stochastic nature of the process it will be extremely slow. In addition the phenotype space is constantly growing and it is not obvious that this slow stochastic takeover process can ever saturate it.

*Evolutionary transition following translation:-* A universally beneficial cellular property that emerged following the maturation of translation caused a giant selective sweep overcoming the preexisting adaptation of different organisms to different environments . A candidate for such an event is the discovery of DNA. This is an attractive possibility. One of the problems is that by the time of maturation of translation we might already have different cell designs with different ecological roles and it is not immediately clear how even such a great innovation can overcome this. In contrast, if the code was already universal due to the communal evolution, proteins involved in DNA processing could have been easily distributed.

*Selection on optimality:-* Once proteins were established as a major determinant of the phenotype, the quality of the genetic code became the single most important contributor to fitness. The more optimized genetic codes out-competed less optimized ones. Related is the suggestion that optimality is linked to evolvability , and therefore, organisms with more optimal codes are evolutionary more successful. The problem here is that it is not *a priori* clear that we can ignore the diversity and competition along all the other phenotypic dimensions. Moreover, the more optimized the codes are, the less will the differences between them matter. So we would expect after all a diversification of the genetic codes.

We conclude that, on rather general grounds, an explanation of code universality based on vertical evolution is likely to be problematic.


Astro2020 APC White Paper: State of the Profession Consideration
The Early Career Perspective on the Coming Decade, Astrophysics Career Paths, and the Decadal Survey Process

**Thematic Areas:** State of the profession considerations: Early career concerns for the coming decade, graduate and postdoctoral training, career preparation, career transitions, and structure and dissemination of decadal survey.
**Principal Authors:**

Names: Emily Moravec \| Ian Czekala \| Kate Follette

Institutions: University of Florida, 2018 NASEM Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Fellow \| UC Berkeley \| Amherst College

Emails: firstname.lastname@example.com \| firstname.lastname@example.com \| email@example.com
**Co-authors:** Zeeshan Ahmed, Mehmet Alpaslan, Alexandra Amon, Will Armentrout, Giada Arney, Darcy Barron, Eric Bellm, Amy Bender, Joanna Bridge, Knicole Colon, Rahul Datta, Casey DeRoo, Wanda Feng, Michael Florian, Travis Gabriel, Kirsten Hall, Erika Hamden, Nimish Hathi, Keith Hawkins, Keri Hoadley, Rebecca Jensen-Clem, Melodie Kao, Erin Kara, Kirit Karkare, Alina Kiessling, Amy Kimball, Allison Kirkpatrick, Paul La Plante, Jarron Leisenring, Miao Li, Jamie Lomax, Michael B. Lund, Jacqueline McCleary, Elisabeth Mills, Edward Montiel, Nicholas Nelson, Rebecca Nevin, Ryan Norris, Michelle Ntampaka, Christine O'Donnell, Eliad Peretz, Andres Plazas Malagon, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Anthony Pullen, Jared Rice, Rachael Roettenbacher, Robyn Sanderson, Jospeh Simon, Krista Lynne Smith, Kevin Stevenson, Todd Veach, Andrew Wetzel, and Allison Youngblood

<img src="NAS.JPG" alt="image" />

**Executive Summary:** In response to the need for the Astro2020 Decadal Survey to explicitly engage early career astronomers, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted the Early Career Astronomer and Astrophysicist Focus Session (ECFS)[^1] on October 8-9, 2018 under the auspices of Committee of Astronomy and Astrophysics. The meeting was attended by fifty six pre-tenure faculty, research scientists, postdoctoral scholars, and senior graduate students[^2], as well as eight former decadal survey committee members, who acted as facilitators. The event was designed to educate early career astronomers about the decadal survey process, to provide them with guidance toward writing effective white papers, to solicit their feedback on the role that early career astronomers should play in Astro2020, and to provide a forum for the discussion of a wide range of topics regarding the astrophysics career path.

This white paper presents highlights and themes that emerged during two days of discussion. In Section 1, we discuss concerns that emerged regarding the coming decade and the astrophysics career path, as well as specific recommendations from participants regarding how to address them. We have organized these concerns and suggestions into five broad themes. These include (sequentially): (1) adequately training astronomers in the statistical and computational techniques necessary in an era of "big data", (2) responses to the growth of collaborations and telescopes, (3) concerns about the adequacy of graduate and postdoctoral training, (4) the need for improvements in equity and inclusion in astronomy, and (5) smoothing and facilitating transitions between early career stages. Section 2 is focused on ideas regarding the decadal survey itself, including: incorporating early career voices, ensuring diverse input from a variety of stakeholders, and successfully and broadly disseminating the results of the survey.

Recommendations presented here do not necessarily represent a universal consensus among participants, nor do they reflect the entirety of the discussions. Rather, we have endeavored to highlight themes, patterns, and concrete suggestions.

# Discussion Themes: Topics of Importance for Early Career Professionals in the Coming Decade

## Theme 1 - The big role of big data and data science in the 2020s

Big data and data science have become integral parts of astronomical research. In an era of data proliferation (both observational and simulated), professional and funding agencies must consider the provision of fiscal, physical, and computational resources when planning projects and evaluating proposals. Particular needs in the area of data science include: the development of infrastructure to manage large datasets, the training of early career professionals in the techniques necessary to work with sophisticated data analysis tools, and the expansion and development of career paths focused on software development, data collection, and data analysis. We recommend that management, development, and analysis of big data be considered both within its own decadal panel and holistically across the survey panels and committees.

During the ECFS, "big data" and modern data analysis techniques featured prominently in discussions about preparation for academic career paths, as well as transitions into professions that employ astronomy Ph.D.s (data science, engineering, defense). There was a general concern among participants that graduate curricula do not provide sufficient training in the sophisticated computational and statistical methodologies necessary to efficiently handle data in general, and large datasets in particular. Participants felt strongly that in order to incentivize the improvement of graduate and postdoctoral training in this area, the decadal survey committee should make explicit recommendations to funding agencies, professional societies, and departments regarding improved training.

#### Recommendations

-   **1.1.1** The decadal survey should include explicit prioritization of theoretical and computational questions in astronomy.

-   **1.1.2** The decadal survey should consider whether the evolution of the profession means that a redistribution or re-prioritization of permanent positions is necessary. In particular, ECFS participants suggested that the panels consider ways in which grant funding might be restructured to incentivize semi-permanent software development and data management positions rather than postdoctoral positions (see also Theme 5).

-   **1.1.3** Professional societies and funding agencies should provide support for conference workshops on data science. Wherever possible, these should be embedded rather than pre-conference workshops to minimize the additional cost of attendance for early career participants.

-   **1.1.4** Departments should restructure graduate curricula to explicitly address the computational and statistical techniques necessary to succeed in the big data era (see also Theme 3).

-   **1.1.5** Observatories, national labs, and large collaborations (LSST, DES, etc.) should increase the number of data science workshops and data-science themed postdoctoral fellowships.

## Theme 2 - The evolving challenges of large missions and collaborations

A further concern among ECFS participants was the trend toward larger facilities and projects. While acknowledging that flagship missions and thirty meter class telescopes are critical for advancing the field, early career astronomers voiced a need for the astronomical community to maintain a broad portfolio. There was widespread concern about the closing of current facilities to "make room" in budgets for large telescopes and missions. Continued operation of an array of facilities operating in various wavelength regimes will be key for the professional training of future astronomers, as well as being needed more broadly for followup observations, time-domain monitoring, etc. We urge the decadal survey committee to consider the need for smaller and more easily accessible facilities that will allow early career astronomers to lead proposals, execute observations, and obtain their own data.

While many early career astronomers are enthusiastic about the science enabled by large facilities and big collaborations, discussions at the ECFS revealed significant anxiety around the preparedness of Ph.D. astronomers to work in an era where 'big' is the norm. Particular concerns in this regard are: the availability of a sufficient number of desirable long-term (non-postdoctoral) positions within academia to support large projects, the marketability of PhD astronomers in fields outside of or peripheral to academic astronomy, and concerns regarding whether and how contributions to large collaborations will be recognized by potential employers. The group predicted that more support scientist positions will be needed to design and maintain hardware and software for large facilities, but have observed a lack of sufficient funding for facility operations and maintenance under the current funding paradigm.

#### Recommendations

-   **1.2.1** The decadal survey committee, funding agencies, and observatories should carefully consider the prioritization of and funding for construction of new facilities vs. operation and maintenance of existing facilities. A broad portfolio of facilities should be maintained, including those where early career astronomers can reasonably expect to lead proposals and obtain telescope time for smaller projects.

-   **1.2.2** The reasonableness of cost estimates for missions and facilities proposed to the decadal survey should be carefully evaluated during project prioritization so that smaller facilities and support staff positions are not "squeezed out" in agency budgets if and when the cost for these missions balloons.

-   **1.2.3** More astronomical journals should move toward a model where contributions to published papers are detailed specifically. This will incentivize early career astronomers to make contributions to large projects even when it will not lead to first authorship, and will provide a means for potential employers to gauge the role of applicants in coauthored papers.

-   **1.2.4** Professional societies and publishers should provide more opportunities for software development work to be recognized, published, and cited.

## Theme 3 - Career Preparation and Opportunities

Early career astronomers are ideally situated to reflect on the experience of their education as well as assess its adequacy in preparing them for the challenge of navigating early career transitions. During the ECFS, participants focused on evaluating existing training, discussing the challenges that mark the transitions to postdoctoral and long-term positions, and preparing recommendations to improve these areas.

ECFS participants felt that some substantive changes are necessary to make the process of obtaining a Ph.D. more inclusive and supportive, and to reduce imbalances that lead to systemic inequalities in the profession (see Theme 5). In this section, we focus on recommendations around maximizing flexibility and marketability of Ph.D. astronomers, and around restructuring graduate curricula to reflect the changing nature of the profession.

#### Recommendations

-   **1.3.1** Departments should incorporate ethics and professional development seminars into graduate curricula. In addition to focusing on proper scientific and professional conduct, these seminars are an excellent venue to hone research and presentation skills.

-   **1.3.2** Departments should consider the flexibility of their curricula, de-emphasizing a burdensome number of core classes and allowing for more electives, particularly in statistical and computational methods.

-   **1.3.3** Grant components such as "Mentoring Plans," and "Facilities and Resources" documents should be given more weight and structure. In particular, they should be tied specifically to curricular methodologies and professional development opportunities for all grants requesting graduate student or postdoctoral funding, and should be standardized across agencies.

-   **1.3.4** AAS should incentivize (e.g. through reduced fees for registration, exhibit space, and workshop facilitation) the participation of members of industry in annual conferences and should consider organizing an alternative careers networking event.

## Theme 4 - The Postdoctoral Years

While the postdoctoral scholar period can be a time of great opportunity and scholarly freedom, it is also fraught with uncertainty. The traditionally transient nature of the postdoctoral years, where frequent cross-country (or international) moves are common and even encouraged, has a variety of hidden societal costs. "2-body problems" and relocation costs add stress and uncertainty to the career transition process and disproportionately affect women and underrepresented minorities.[^3] Efforts are also needed to de-stigmatize the actions of those astronomers who express interest in non-academic career options, including during the graduate admission process and during graduate and postdoctoral mentoring.

#### Recommendations

-   **1.4.1** Five year postdoctoral appointments should be encouraged by funding agencies and appointments with terms of less than three years should be strongly discouraged.

-   **1.4.2** To increase the quality of applications while also reducing the considerable stress on applicants during job application season, the postdoctoral fellowship application process should be standardized in terms of the nature and length of required materials. Specific and measurable criteria should be posted in job ads to help applicants in evaluating their suitability for positions. For example, vague advertising for "outstanding candidates" preselects for candidates with high self-efficacy.

-   **1.4.3** The AAS should contract with social scientists to conduct regular membership surveys that include astronomers who have left academia, and should include the results in state of the profession reports.

-   **1.4.4** The social and psychological pressures of the Astrophysics Jobs Rumor Mill outweigh the benefits, and its information is often inaccurate or incomplete. It should be replaced by a commitment on the part of departments and agencies offering employment to release timely information to **all** job applicants regarding the search status, even if it has not concluded (e.g. "we have created a short list and invited five applicants to visit").

-   **1.4.5** Development of teaching and communication skills should be incentivized and given greater emphasis in graduate curricula, postdoctoral training, and analysis of candidates for academic jobs. This can be accomplished through targeted graduate coursework, workshops, structured feedback to graduate students giving presentations (i.e. journal clubs), a greater emphasis on teaching and diversity statements in job applications, etc.

-   **1.4.6** The community should rethink the distribution of temporary (e.g. postdoc) vs. potentially permanent (e.g. staff scientist) positions and the ways in which they are funded (e.g. grants vs. operations budgets). In particular, support and software design for large surveys and telescopes should be done by long-term staff members and not by postdocs.

## Theme 5 - A Diverse Workforce and Equitable Community

There was a strong consensus and desire among attendees that the astronomy community of the future should reflect the breadth of identities of the nation as a whole. Progress has been made in this area in the past decade, however there remains a great deal of work to be done. In particular, more work is needed to eliminate inequities and barriers to entry into the profession, which will enable more people of color, white women, members of the LGBTQ+ community, and people with disabilities to enter and, more importantly, to remain in the field. These efforts will benefit **all** members of the profession in myriad ways. In order to enable meaningful change, we hope to see the 2020 decadal survey make specific, high-priority, and far-reaching recommendations in this regard.

#### Recommendations

-   **1.5.1** We urge the decadal panels to consider white papers regarding the state of the profession to be of equal importance to science and facilities white papers. Although these papers will be read by separate panels, we hope that members of the state of the profession panels will work together with members of the science panels and survey officials to ensure that the broader recommendations of Astro2020 integrate science and state of the profession recommendations powerfully and effectively.

-   **1.5.2** Minoritized individuals often bear a disproportionate service burden, including during graduate school and postdoc years when these efforts are not generally a recognized responsibility. Graduate and postdoctoral fellowships should explicitly ask for information about, value, and reward this important work.

-   **1.5.3** AAS should consider establishing an award that specifically recognizes service in the area of improving representation in our profession.

-   **1.5.4** Training concerning gender and racial harassment should be required for all members of academic departments, including: faculty, postdocs, graduate students (especially teaching assistants), and staff. More training is needed across the board to combat gender and racial harassment in our field, particularly training with a focus on intersectionality.

-   **1.5.5** To mitigate concerns about harassment and bullying, graduate departments should move away from the single mentor model towards advising strategies that encourage interaction with multiple faculty members on a regular basis (e.g., larger advising committees with semi-regular meetings). This would have the added benefit of proving more opportunities for all students to seek support and advice from a range of mentors in addition to providing a safety net for students with difficult or abusive advising relationships.

-   **1.5.6** The AAS should establish a list of best-practices for parental and child leave policies for graduate students and postdocs. Similar to recommendation 1.3.3, this information should be included in grant documents that request funding for graduate students and postdocs.

# Recommendations Regarding the Structure and Dissemination of the Decadal Survey

## Early career participation in the decadal survey

A key goal of the ECFS was to solicit feedback regarding how early career astronomers would like to be represented throughout the decadal survey process. Many participants argued for the most direct form of representation: full membership on survey panels. Several concerns regarding full panel membership were raised, however. These included: 1) reduced scientific productivity during a vulnerable career stage, 2) uncertainty regarding recognition by tenure committees and potential employers of the importance of this service to the profession, and 3) the potential to become enmeshed in controversial decisions that could negatively affect future career prospects. Several ideas were put forward regarding ways to mitigate these concerns for early career participants on the panels, namely: funding (e.g., a "decadal fellowship"), recognition (e.g. a specific title or award that could be included in job and tenure applications), commitments from panel chairs to write letters of recommendation for jobs and letters of support for tenure, commitments from senior panel members to support early career colleagues with invitations to give seminars and colloquia, and childcare support.

The principal alternative to full participation put forward was the formation of "early career consultation groups." These groups would travel to or virtually participate in some subset of decadal survey meetings. This would give early career astronomers a "seat at the table" but would also mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of full survey participation on the careers of participants in these groups.

Other ideas for early career involvement ranged from early career town halls, workshops, and conferences hosted by the American Astronomical Society and National Academies to inviting early career astronomers to make presentations to the decadal panels. While the assembled astronomers were not uniformly in support of a single recommendation, increased participation in some format (and perhaps multiple formats) was a universal theme in the discussions.

#### Recommendations

In order to increase the early career representation in the decadal survey process, we recommend that the decadal survey committee:

-   **2.1.1** Implement incentives for early career astronomers to participate as full panel members (see above).

-   **2.1.2** Invite early career astronomers to serve as consultants to the decadal panels.

-   **2.1.3** Invite early career astronomers to deliver presentations to panels.

## Soliciting inclusive input to the 2020 decadal and beyond

Another discussion theme revolved around how to solicit broad input from the astronomical community, ensure that diverse voices are heard, and successfully disseminate the conclusions of the decadal survey to all of its "stakeholders." First, town halls could be standardized (so that more places could easily arrange them) and conducted both digitally and in a wide range of geographic locations. Focused virtual town halls could explicitly target the challenges facing certain groups in astronomy (e.g. postdocs, observatory staff).

Second, we suggest that panel members are either present at the town halls, or that minutes from these events are compiled and circulated so that panel members are aware of what was discussed. Lastly, the survey committee should also consider inviting additional stakeholders not traditionally involved in the decadal survey process (e.g. native Hawaiians, amateur astronomers, K12 astronomy educators, data science employers) and certain additional subsets of the community (e.g. disabled astronomers, LGBTQ+ astronomers, etc.) to participate in Astro2020, either by making invited presentations to the committee or through focused town halls that are broadly advertised.

#### Recommendations

In order to ensure equitable participation and dissemination to the broadest possible audience of stakeholders (within and beyond the astronomy community), we recommend that the decadal survey committee:

-   **2.2.1** Standardize town halls.

-   **2.2.2** Organize official gatherings (town hall, focus session, etc.) that target specific groups of people whose perspectives have been historically missing in the decadal survey process and/or are important for the current decadal at hand (i.e. underrepresented people groups, geographically underrepresented groups, graduate students, postdocs, etc.).

-   **2.2.3** Encourage participation by all stakeholders in the decadal survey process through invited presentations to the committee and targeted virtual town halls.

-   **2.2.4** Make survey highlights available in multiple easily-digestible formats that adhere to the principles of universal design. For example: an "Executive Summary" (1-page) document, publicly available slide decks highlighting priorities, digital representations that are captioned and easy to share on social media platforms (e.g. 5-10 minute videos).

# Conclusion

The Early Career Astronomer and Astrophysicist Focus Session was a unique opportunity for a large group of early career professionals to gather and discuss the state of the astronomy profession. Lively and at times contentious discussions about the state of the profession centered around the five main themes identified in this document, namely: the role of big data in the future of astronomy, the evolving challenges of large missions and collaborations, graduate training and career preparation, the postdoctoral years, and creating a diverse workforce and equitable community. Although ECFS participants had many concerns about and ideas for improvements in these areas, there was also an overwhelming energy and enthusiasm about the future of our field and an optimism about the potential for meaningful change. A central goal of the event was to collect ideas about changes that early career astronomers would like to see made to the decadal survey process, and ideas that were generated in this regard are outlined in section 2. We, the participants, felt strongly that early career voices should be heard at every stage of the decadal process, and not just at the focus session. We look forward to participating in more of the Astro2020 decadal survey.

[^1]: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/SSB_185166

[^2]: List of participants http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/ssbsite/documents/webpage/ssb_189919.pdf

[^3]: See <http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/02/figure-1-two-body-problem.html> and references therein.


abstract: A simple exactly solvable model is proposed for describing the decays $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B^0\bar B^0$ and $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B^+B^-$. Our predictions agree with available experimental data. Using this model, we analyze the Coulomb effects in the spectra of these decays. It is shown that the frequently used assumption of factorization of Coulomb effects is not fulfilled. The Coulomb interaction leads to the difference in the positions and heights of the peaks corresponding to the charged and neutral modes. As a result, the ratio of probability of $\Upsilon (4S)\rightarrow B^+B^-$ decay and $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B^0\bar B^0$ decay is a nontrivial function of energy.
author: A.I. Milstein; S.G. Salnikov
date: 2024-10-01
title: Coulomb effects in the decays $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B\bar B$

# Introduction

The study of resonances of mass $M_R$, which slightly exceeds the particle-antiparticle pair production threshold $M_{th}$, is a very important task. Such a study makes it possible to investigate in detail the effects of strong interaction in the region where perturbation theory is not applicable. Of particular interest is the case when $M_R-M_{th}$ is of the order of the resonance width $\Gamma_R$, since in this case the shape of the resonance curve becomes very nontrivial. In addition, the low relative velocity of a pair of charged particles makes the influence of Coulomb effects very important. In particular, these conditions correspond to the decays of $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B^0\bar B^0$ and $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B^+B^-$.

For resonance $\Upsilon (4S)$, we have $M_R=10579.4\pm 1.4\,\mbox{MeV}$, $M_R-M_{th}= 20.1\pm 1.4\,\mbox{MeV}$ for neutral mesons and $20.7 \pm 1.4 \, \mbox {MeV}$ for charged mesons, $\Gamma_R= 20.5\pm 2.5 \,\mbox{MeV}$, and the sum of the probabilities $W_c$ and $W_n$ of the decays $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B^+B^-$ and $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B^0\bar B^0$, respectively, is almost 100%. Note that the mass difference $M_{B^0}-M_{B^+}\approx0.3 \,\mbox{MeV}\ll\Gamma_R$, and in the first approximation this difference can be neglected.

Currently, there are a number of experimental works devoted to the decays of the $\Upsilon (4S)$ meson . The parameter $t=\pi\alpha/v\approx 0.37$, which determines the magnitude of the Coulomb effects, is not small (here $v$ is the velocity of the $B$ meson, $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant, $\hbar = c = 1$). Therefore, it would be possible to estimate the magnitude of the Coulomb effects using the Sommerfeld-Gamow-Sakharov factor, $W_c/W_n\sim t/[1-\exp(-t)]\approx 1.2$. However, the value of this ratio given in the PDG tables is much smaller, $W_c/W_n= 1.058 \pm 0.024\,$. Various theoretical approaches have been proposed to estimate Coulomb effects in $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B\bar B$ decays with completely different qualitative predictions of the magnitude of these effects .

The appearance of experimental data for the resonance shape of $\Upsilon (4S)$ allows one to make a progress in understanding Coulomb effects. Unfortunately, these experimental data contain information only on the shape of the spectral line for the sum $W_c+W_n$, and the ratio $W_c/W_n$ is measured only at the energy corresponding to the maximum of this sum. However, there is a question whether the positions of peaks in the spectrum of charged and neutral $B$ mesons coincides, and how the Coulomb interaction affects the shape and position of these peaks.

In our paper, we have suggested a simple exactly solvable model that describes the available experimental data and allows us to answer, at least qualitatively, the questions mentioned above. Of course, at present it is not known much about the exact interaction Hamiltonian of $B$-mesons. However, for our purposes, this is not a big problem. This is similar to the situation with the phenomenological description of the quarkonium spectra, where completely different analytical representations of the potentials are used, and all of them describe both the quarkonium spectra and the wave functions well enough. Therefore, we expect our predictions to clarify the physics of near-threshold resonances and explain the meaning of observed effects.

# Theoretical approach

Technically, the method for solving the problem under discussion is similar to that developed for calculating the cross section of $e^+e^-$ annihilation into proton-antiproton and neutron-antineutron pairs near the pair production thresholds . The main difference of these two problems, in addition to different spins, angular momenta and a significant mass difference of the proton and neutron, is high probability of meson production near the nucleon-antinucleon pair production threshold. Therefore, in $\Upsilon (4S) \rightarrow B\bar B$ decay we can use the usual potential instead of an optical potential, as in the case of nucleon-antinucleon pair production.

In our problem $B\bar B$ pair is produced in a state with an orbital angular momentum $l=1$. At small distances, a pair of $b\bar b$ quarks is produced in a state with zero isospin, which, as a result of hadronization, transforms into a superposition of interacting $B^+B^-$ and $B^0\bar B^0$ mesons. Due to the electromagnetic interaction of charged mesons, a state with isospin zero is admixed with a state of isospin one. As a result, the probabilities of charged and neutral meson pair production are different. Of course, the difference between the masses of $B^+$ and $B^0$ also leads to the isospin violation, but this difference is very small ($\sim 0.3\, \mbox{MeV}$), and can be ignored in the first approximation. The Coulomb interaction of $b$ quarks at small distances also leads to a very small effect. Hence, the effect of isospin symmetry violation is mainly related to the Coulomb interaction of mesons in the final state.

Following , consider the radial wave function $\Psi^T(r)=\left(U^{(c)}(r),\,U^{(n)}(r)\right)$ of $B\bar B$ pair, where $U^{(c)}(r)$ corresponds to a pair of charged $B$-mesons, and $U^{(n)}(r)$ corresponds to a pair of neutral $B$-mesons, $T$ means transpose. It is convenient to pass from the wave function $\Psi^T (r)$ to the wave function $\psi^T(r)=kr\,\Psi^T(r)=\left(u^{(c)}(r),\,u^{(n)}(r)\right)$, where $k=\sqrt{M_BE}$, $M_B$ is the mass of the meson, and $E$ is the energy of $B\bar B$ pair, counted from $M_{th}=2M_B$. The function $\psi(r)$ satisfies the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{we}
& \left[-\dfrac{1}{M_B}\,\dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial\,r^2}+
\dfrac{2}{M_Br^2}+V(r)+ V_{ex}(r)\,\begin{pmatrix}0 &1\\
1 &0\end{pmatrix}-\dfrac{\alpha}{r}\,\begin{pmatrix}1 &0\\
0&0\end{pmatrix}-E \right]\psi(r)=0\,,\nonumber\\
&V(r)=\dfrac{1}{2}[{\cal V}_1(r)+{\cal V}_0(r)]\,,\quad V_{ex}(r)=\dfrac{1}{2}[{\cal V}_1(r)-{\cal V}_0(r)]\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal V}_1(r)$ and ${\cal V}_0(r)$ are the potentials of meson interaction in the states with isospin one and zero, respectively. The potential $V_{ex}(r)$ leads to the transitions $B^+B^-\leftrightarrow B^0\bar B^0$.

It is necessary to find two solutions $\psi_i(r)$ of with asymptotics at large distances $$\begin{aligned}
& \psi_{1}^{T}(r)=\frac{1}{2i}\left(S_{11}\chi_{c}^{+}-\chi_{c}^{-},\,S_{12}\chi_{n}^{+}\right),\nonumber \\
& \psi_{2}^{T}(r)=\frac{1}{2i}\left(S_{21}\chi_{c}^{+},\,S_{22}\chi_{n}^{+}-\chi_{n}^{-}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ Here $S_{ij}$ are some functions of energy and $$\begin{aligned}
& \chi_{c}^{\pm}=\exp\left\{\pm i\left[kr- \pi/2+\eta_k\ln(2kr)+\sigma_k\right]\right\},\nonumber \\
& \chi_{n}^{\pm}=\exp\left[\vphantom{\bigl(\bigr)}\pm i\left(kr- \pi/2\right)\right],\nonumber \\
& \sigma_k=\frac{i}{2}\ln\frac{\Gamma\left(2+i\eta_k\right)}{\Gamma\left(2-i\eta_k\right)}\,,\qquad
\eta_k=\frac{M_B\alpha}{2k}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ is the Euler $\Gamma$ function.

The probabilities $W_c$ and $W_n$ of decays $\Upsilon(4s)\rightarrow B^+B^-$ and $\Upsilon(4s)\rightarrow B^0\bar B^0$, respectively, are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3W}
&W_c=N\,k\,\left|\dfrac{\partial}{\partial r}\,U_{1}^{(c)}(0)-\dfrac{\partial}{\partial r}U_{1}^{(n)}(0)\right|^2\,,\nonumber\\
&W_n=N\,k\,\left|\dfrac{\partial}{\partial r}U_{2 }^{(c)}(0)-\dfrac{\partial}{\partial r}U_{2 }^{(n)}(0)\right|^2\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is some constant. As a model potential, we choose $V(r)=-V_0\,\theta(a-r)$ and $V_{ex}(r)=g\,\delta(r-a)$, where $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside function, $\delta(x)$ is the Dirac $\delta$-function, $V_0$, $g$ and $a$ are some parameters. It turned out that such a simple model is sufficient to describe the available experimental data well enough. Using this potential model, it is easy to obtain an analytical solution, which simplifies the analysis of the influence of Coulomb effects on the probability of pair production. We are confident that, at least qualitatively, our predictions correspond to the actual experimental situation.

For $r<a$, the solutions are regular at the point $r=0$ and have the form $$\begin{aligned}
&u_{1,2}^{(c)}(r)=A_{1,2}\,{\cal F}(y)\,,\quad u_{1,2}^{(n)}(r)=B_{1,2}\,f(y)\,,\nonumber\\
&{\cal F}(y)=\dfrac{C_q}{3}y^2 \,e^{-iy}\,F(i\eta_q+2,4,\,2iy)\,,\quad
f(y)=\dfrac{\sin y}{y}-\cos y\,,\nonumber\\
&C_q=\sqrt{\dfrac{2\pi\eta_q\,(1+\eta_q^2)}{1-\exp(-2\pi\eta_q)}}\,,\quad
 y=qr\,,\quad q=\sqrt{M_B(E+V_0)}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Here $F(b,c,z)$ is the confluent hypergeometric function of the first kind, $A_{1,2}$ and $B_{1,2}$ are some coefficients. For $r>a$ the solutions are $$\begin{aligned}
&u_{1}^{(c)}(r)=\frac{1}{2i}\left[S_{11}\,H^{+}(k,x)  -H^{-}(k,x)\right],\quad u_{1}^{(n)}(r)=  \frac{1}{2i}\,S_{12}\,h^{+}(x)\,,\nonumber\\
&u_{2}^{(c)}=\frac{1}{2i}\,S_{21}\,H^{+}(k,x)\,,\quad u_{2}^{(n)}(r)=  \frac{1}{2i}\left[\,S_{22}\,h^{+}(x)-h^{-}(x)\right],\nonumber\\
&H^+(k,x)=4i\exp[ix +i\sigma_k-\pi\eta_k/2]\,x^2\,{\cal U}(2-i\eta_k,4,\,-2ix)\,,\nonumber\\
&H^-(k,x)=-4i\exp[-ix -i\sigma_k-\pi\eta_k/2]\,x^2\,{\cal U}(2+i\eta_k,4,\,2ix)\,,\nonumber\\
&h^+(x)=\left(\dfrac{1}{x}-i\right)\,e^{ix}\,,\quad h^-(x)=\left(\dfrac{1}{x}+i\right)\,e^{-ix}\,,\nonumber\\
& x=kr\,,\quad k=\sqrt{M_BE}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Here ${\cal U}(b,c,z)$ is the confluent hypergeometric function of the second kind. The following relations hold $${\cal F}(y)=\frac{1}{2i}\left[\,H^{+}(q,y)  -H^{-}(q,y)\right],\quad  f(y)=\frac{1}{2i}\left[\,h^{+}(y)  -h^{-}(y)\right].$$ Using the continuity of the function $\psi(r)$ at the point $r=a$ and the condition $$\psi'(a+0)-\psi'(a-0)=M_B\,g\,\,\begin{pmatrix}0 &1\\
1 &0\end{pmatrix}\psi(a)\,,$$ we find the coefficients $A_i$ and $Bi$. As a result, we obtain the probabilities $W_c$ and $W_n$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wcnfinal}
&W_c=b\, \dfrac{k\,q^2}{M_B^3}\,\Big|\dfrac{q}{D}\Big\{C_q\,\Big[k\,h^{+}{}'(ka)\,f(qa) -q\, h^+(ka)\,f'(qa)\Big]-M_B\,g\,h^+(ka)\,{\cal F}(qa)\Big\}\Big|^2\,,\nonumber\\
&W_n=b\, \dfrac{k\,q^2}{M_B^3}\,\Big|\dfrac{q}{D}\Big\{\Big[k\,H^{+}{}'(ka)\,{\cal F}(qa) -q\, H^+(ka)\,{\cal F}'(qa)\Big]-C_q\,M_B\,g\,H^+(ka)\,f(qa)\Big\}\Big|^2\,,\nonumber\\
&D=\Big[k\,h^{+}{}'(ka)\,f(qa) -q\, h^+(ka)\,f'(qa)\Big]\Big[k\,H^{+}{}'(ka)\,{\cal F}(qa) -q\, H^+(ka)\,{\cal F}'(qa)\Big]\nonumber\\
&-M_B^2g^2\,h^+(ka)\,H^+(ka)\,f(qa)\,{\cal F}(qa)\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $b$ is some constant and $Z'(x)\equiv \partial Z(x)/\partial x$. It is the ratio $R$ of the cross section $e^+e^-\to B\bar B$ to the Born cross section $e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-$, that is usually presented in the experimental papers. Taking into account slow energy dependence of the cross section of $\mu^+\mu^-$ production in the energy region considered, we choose the constant $b$ to reproduce this ratio $R$. The expressions are exact within the model under consideration and are very convenient for analyzing various effects.

# Discussion of the results

It turned out that our predictions are rather sensitive to the value of parameter $g$. However, comparison with experimental data shows that $g$ is very small. Below we put $g=0$, so the expressions  become much simpler $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wcnfinal0}
&W_c=b\, \dfrac{k\,q^2}{M_B^3}\,\Bigg|\dfrac{q\,C_q}{k\,H^{+}{}'(ka)\,{\cal F}(qa) -q\, H^+(ka)\,{\cal F}'(qa)}\Bigg|^2\,,\nonumber\\
&W_n=b\, \dfrac{k\,q^2}{M_B^3}\,\Bigg|\dfrac{q\,}{k\,h^{+}{}'(ka)\,f(qa) -q\, h^+(ka)\,f'(qa)}\Bigg|^2\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Our analysis shows that the observed resonance $\Upsilon(4S)$ is related to a low-energy virtual state in the $p$-wave with the potential $V_0$ being much larger than the energy of a virtual level. Therefore, the potential $V_0$ can be chosen in the form $$\label{V0}
V_0=\dfrac{(n\pi)^2}{M_Ba^2} -E_R\,,\quad n=3,4,5,6\dots\,,$$ where $E_R$ is a parameter close to the value of the resonance energy, $E_R\approx 22 \,\mbox {MeV}\,$. It only slightly depends on $a$ and is almost independent of $n$. It turned out that for any $a$ in the interval $2\,\mbox{fm}\leqslant a\leqslant 2.5\,\mbox{fm}$ and for $n\geqslant 3$, the curves for $W_c$ and $W_n$, described by Eqs.  and , have similar shapes (up to the general scale $b$), so that the ratio $W_c/W_n$ conserves. Below we use the values $V_0=269\,\mbox{MeV}$, $a=2.5\,\mbox{fm}$, $b=23$, $g=0$. These values correspond to $n = 5$.

The dependence of $W_c$ and $W_n$ on $E$ is shown in Fig. . The solid curve corresponds to $W_c$ and the dotted curve corresponds to $W_n$. It is seen that there are two peaks with the different positions and heights, the distance between peaks is $\sim 2\,\mbox{MeV}$. This is a consequence of the Coulomb interaction, since in the absence of this interaction the peaks would coincide (recall that we did not take into account the small mass difference of $B^+$ and $B^0$). The width of each peak is approximately $17\,\mbox{MeV}$, and the width of $W_{tot}=W_c+W_n$ is about $20\,\mbox{MeV}$, which is a consequence of the different positions of the peaks $W_c$ and $W_n$. The energy dependence of $W_{tot}$ is shown in Fig.  by a dashed curve, and $W_{tot}$ averaged over the beam-energy spread of PEP-II is shown by a solid curve. The same figure shows experimental data from Ref. , which are based on Ref.  and take into account radiative corrections and radiative return. Assuming Gaussian distribution with $\Delta=4.6\,\mbox{MeV}$, averaging was carried out according to the formula $$\langle W(E)\rangle=\int_0^\infty W(E')\exp\left[-\dfrac{(E-E')^2}{2\Delta^2}\right]\dfrac{dE'}{\sqrt{2\pi}\,\Delta}\,.$$ One can see very good agreement between the predictions and the experimental data everywhere, except for the region above $35\,\mbox{MeV}$, which is most likely due to the close threshold of $B^*\bar B$ and $B\bar B^*$ pair production.

The energy dependence of the ratio $W_c/W_n$ is shown in Fig. . The dotted curve corresponds to Eq.  while the solid curve is the ratio of probabilities averaged over the beam-energy spread. It is seen that the ratio $W_c/W_n$ strongly depends on $E$, and near the maximum of $W_{tot}$ the function $W_c/W_n-1$ passes through zero. The ratio $W_c/W_n$ increases rapidly at lower energy and can reach 1.4 at $E\sim 10\,\mbox {MeV}\,$.

The assumption that $W_c=C^2_k\,W_n$ is very often used to describe Coulomb effects. The energy dependence of the ratio $W_c/C^2_k\,W_n$ is shown in Fig. . It is seen that the hypothesis of factorization of the Coulomb effects does not work. Note that $W_n\propto k^3$ and $W_c\to \mbox{const}\neq 0$ at $E\to 0$ so that $W_c/C^2_k\,W_n$ tends to a constant, but this constant is not equal to unity. The violation of the factorization of Coulomb effects was first noted in when describing the production of nucleon-antinucleon pairs in $e^+e^-$ annihilation near the threshold.

# Conclusion

In our work, we have suggested a simple description of the decay probabilities $\Upsilon(4S)\to B^+B^-$ and $\Upsilon(4S)\to B^0\bar B^0$. Our results are in good agreement with the available experimental data. We predict the existence of two peaks whose positions and heights differ due to Coulomb effects. Moreover, the ratio $W_c/W_n$ is a nontrivial function of energy, which increases rapidly as the energy decreases with respect to the peak position. It is also shown that the frequently used assumption of factorization of the Coulomb corrections is not in agreement with the exact results.

# Acknowledgments

We are grateful to A.E. Bondar and R.V. Mizuk for useful discussions.