  Would another origin of life resemble Earth's biochemical use of amino acids?
Here we review current knowledge at three levels: 1) Could other classes of
chemical structure serve as building blocks for biopolymer structure and
catalysis? Amino acids now seem both readily available to, and a plausible
chemical attractor for, life as we don't know it. Amino acids thus remain
important and tractable targets for astrobiological research. 2) If amino acids
are used, would we expect the same L-alpha-structural subclass used by life?
Despite numerous ideas, it is not clear why life favors L-enantiomers. It seems
clearer, however, why life on Earth uses the shortest possible (alpha-) amino
acid backbone, and why each carries only one side chain. However, assertions
that other backbones are physicochemically impossible have relaxed into
arguments that they are disadvantageous. 3) Would we expect a similar set of
side chains to those within the genetic code? Not only do many plausible
alternatives exist and evidence exists for both evolutionary advantage and
physicochemical constraint for those encoded by life. Overall, as focus shifts
from amino acids as a chemical class to specific side chains used by post-LUCA
biology, the probable role of physicochemical constraint diminishes relative to
that of biological evolution. Exciting opportunities now present themselves for
laboratory work and computing to explore how changing the amino acid alphabet
alters the universe of protein folds. Near-term milestones include: a)
expanding evidence about amino acids as attractors within chemical evolution;
b) extending characterization of other backbones relative to biological
proteins; c) merging computing and laboratory explorations of structures and
functions unlocked by xeno peptides.
