{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017229953611663355, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013253810470510272, 'mean_word_length': 4.875486381322958, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Structuring of the genetic code took place at acidic pH.

I have observed that in multiple regression the number of codons specifying amino acids in the genetic code is positively correlated with the isoelectric point of amino acids and their molecular weight. Therefore basic amino acids are, on average, codified in the genetic code by a larger number of codons, which seems to imply that the genetic code originated in an acidic 'intracellular' environment. Moreover, I compare the proteins from Picrophilus torridus and Thermoplasma volcanium, which have different intracellular pH and I define the ranks of acidophily for the amino acids. A simple index of acidophily (AI), which can be easily obtained from acidophily ranks, can be associated to any protein and, therefore, can also be associated to the genetic code if the number of synonymous codons attributed to the amino acids in the code is assumed to be the frequency with which the amino acids appeared in ancestral proteins. Finally, the sampling of the variable AI among organisms having an intracellular pH less than or equal to 6.6 and those having a non-acidic intracellular pH leads to the conclusion that the value of the genetic code's AI is not typical of proteins of the latter organisms. As the genetic code's AI value is also statistically not different from that of proteins of the organisms having an acidic intracellular pH, this supports the hypothesis that the structuring of the genetic code took place in acidic pH conditions.