The relative ages of eukaryotes and akaryotes

Is Darwinian selection a retrograde driving force of evolution?

Modern science has still not provided a satisfactory empirical explanation for the increasing complexity of living organisms through evolutionary history. As no agreed-upon definitions of the complexity exist, the working definition of biological complexity has been formulated. There is no theoretical reason to expect evolutionary lineages to increase in complexity over time, and there is no empirical evidence that they do so. In our discussion we have assumed the hypothesis that at the origins of life, evolution had to first involve autocatalytic systems that only subsequently acquired the capacity of genetic heredity. We discuss the role of Darwinian selection in evolution and pose the hypothesis that Darwinian selection acts predominantly as a retrograde driving force of evolution. In this context we understand the term retrograde evolution as a degeneration of living systems from higher complexity towards living systems with lower complexity. With the proposed hypothesis we have closed the gap between Darwinism and Lamarckism early in the evolutionary process. By Lamarckism, the action of a special principle called complexification force is understood here rather than inheritance of acquired characteristics.

A Proterozoic microbial origin of extant cyanide-hydrolyzing enzyme diversity

In addition to its role as a toxic environmental contaminant, cyanide has been hypothesized to play a key role in prebiotic chemistry and early biogeochemical evolution. While cyanide-hydrolyzing enzymes have been studied and engineered for bioremediation, the extant diversity of these enzymes remains underexplored. Additionally, the age and evolution of microbial cyanide metabolisms is poorly constrained. Here we provide comprehensive phylogenetic and molecular clock analyses of the distribution and evolution of the Class I nitrilases, thiocyanate hydrolases, and nitrile hydratases. Molecular clock analyses indicate that bacterial cyanide-reducing nitrilases were present by the Paleo- to Mesoproterozoic, and were subsequently horizontally transferred into eukaryotes. These results present a broad diversity of microbial enzymes that could be optimized for cyanide bioremediation.

The earliest history of eukaryotic life: uncovering an evolutionary story through the integration of biological and geological data

While there is significant data on eukaryogenesis and the early development of the eukaryotic lineage, major uncertainties regarding their origins and evolution remain, including questions of taxonomy, timing, and paleoecology. Here we examine the origin and diversification of the eukaryotes in the Proterozoic Eon as viewed through fossils, organic biomarkers, molecular clocks, phylogenies, and redox proxies. Our interpretation of the integration of these data suggest that eukaryotes were likely aerobic and established in Proterozoic ecosystems. We argue that we must closely examine and integrate both biological and geological evidence and examine points of agreement and contention to gain new insights into the true origin and early evolutionary history of this vastly important group.

The deep(er) roots of Eukaryotes and Akaryotes

Background: Locating the root node of the "tree of life" (ToL) is one of the hardest problems in phylogenetics, given the time depth. The root-node, or the universal common ancestor (UCA), groups descendants into organismal clades/domains. Two notable variants of the two-domains ToL (2D-ToL) have gained support recently. One 2D-ToL posits that eukaryotes (organisms with nuclei) and akaryotes (organisms without nuclei) are sister clades that diverged from the UCA, and that Asgard archaea are sister to other archaea. The other 2D-ToL proposes that eukaryotes emerged from within archaea and places Asgard archaea as sister to eukaryotes. Williams et al. ( Nature Ecol. Evol. 4: 138-147; 2020) re-evaluated the data and methods that support the competing two-domains proposals and concluded that eukaryotes are the closest relatives of Asgard archaea. Critique: The poor resolution of the archaea in their analysis, despite employing amino acid alignments from thousands of proteins and the best-fitting substitution models, contradicts their conclusions. We argue that they overlooked important aspects of estimating evolutionary relatedness and assessing phylogenetic signal in empirical data. Which 2D-ToL is better supported depends on which kind of molecular features are better for resolving common ancestors at the roots of clades - protein-domains or their component amino acids. We focus on phylogenetic character reconstructions necessary to describe the UCA or its closest descendants in the absence of reliable fossils.     Clarifications: It is well known that different character types present different perspectives on evolutionary history that relate to different phylogenetic depths. We show that protein structural-domains support more reliable phylogenetic reconstructions of deep-diverging clades in the ToL. Accordingly, Eukaryotes and Akaryotes are better supported clades in a 2D-ToL.

Evolution of the Drosophila melanogaster Chromatin Landscape and Its Associated Proteins

In the nucleus of eukaryotic cells, genomic DNA associates with numerous protein complexes and RNAs, forming the chromatin landscape. Through a genome-wide study of chromatin-associated proteins in Drosophila cells, five major chromatin types were identified as a refinement of the traditional binary division into hetero- and euchromatin. These five types were given color names in reference to the Greek word chroma. They are defined by distinct but overlapping combinations of proteins and differ in biological and biochemical properties, including transcriptional activity, replication timing, and histone modifications. In this work, we assess the evolutionary relationships of chromatin-associated proteins and present an integrated view of the evolution and conservation of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster chromatin landscape. We combine homology prediction across a wide range of species with gene age inference methods to determine the origin of each chromatin-associated protein. This provides insight into the evolution of the different chromatin types. Our results indicate that for the euchromatic types, YELLOW and RED, young associated proteins are more specialized than old ones; and for genes found in either chromatin type, intron/exon structure is lineage-specific. Next, we provide evidence that a subset of GREEN-associated proteins is involved in a centromere drive in D. melanogaster. Our results on BLUE chromatin support the hypothesis that the emergence of Polycomb Group proteins is linked to eukaryotic multicellularity. In light of these results, we discuss how the regulatory complexification of chromatin links to the origins of eukaryotic multicellularity.

Lokiarchaea are close relatives of Euryarchaeota, not bridging the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes

The eocyte hypothesis, in which Eukarya emerged from within Archaea, has been boosted by the description of a new candidate archaeal phylum, "Lokiarchaeota", from metagenomic data. Eukarya branch within Lokiarchaeota in a tree reconstructed from the concatenation of 36 universal proteins. However, individual phylogenies revealed that lokiarchaeal proteins sequences have different evolutionary histories. The individual markers phylogenies revealed at least two subsets of proteins, either supporting the Woese or the Eocyte tree of life. Strikingly, removal of a single protein, the elongation factor EF2, is sufficient to break the Eukaryotes-Lokiarchaea affiliation. Our analysis suggests that the three lokiarchaeal EF2 proteins have a chimeric organization that could be due to contamination and/or homologous recombination with patches of eukaryotic sequences. A robust phylogenetic analysis of RNA polymerases with a new dataset indicates that Lokiarchaeota and related phyla of the Asgard superphylum are sister group to Euryarchaeota, not to Eukarya, and supports the monophyly of Archaea with their rooting in the branch leading to Thaumarchaeota.

Ancient, highly conserved proteins from a LUCA with complex cell biology provide evidence in support of the nuclear compartment commonality (NuCom) hypothesis

The nuclear compartment commonality (NuCom) hypothesis posits a complex last common ancestor (LUCA) with membranous compartments including a nuclear membrane. Such a LUCA then evolved to produce two nucleated lineages of the tree of life: the Planctomycetes-Verrucomicrobia-Chlamydia superphylum (PVC) within the Bacteria, and the Eukarya. We propose that a group of ancient essential protokaryotic signature proteins (PSPs) originating in LUCA were incorporated into ancestors of PVC Bacteria and Eukarya. Tubulins, ubiquitin system enzymes and sterol-synthesizing enzymes are consistent with early origins of these features shared between the PVC superphylum and Eukarya.

Physiology, anaerobes, and the origin of mitosing cells 50 years on

Endosymbiotic theory posits that some organelles or structures of eukaryotic cells stem from free-living prokaryotes that became endosymbionts within a host cell. Endosymbiosis has a long and turbulent history of controversy and debate going back over 100 years. The 1967 paper by Lynn Sagan (later Lynn Margulis) forced a reluctant field to take endosymbiotic theory seriously and to incorporate it into the fabric of evolutionary thinking. Margulis envisaged three cellular partners associating in series at eukaryotic origin: the host (an engulfing bacterium), the mitochondrion (a respiring bacterium), and the flagellum (a spirochaete), with lineages descended from that flagellated eukaryote subsequently acquiring plastids from cyanobacteria, but on multiple different occasions in her 1967 account. Today, the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria and plastids (each single events, the data now say) is uncontested textbook knowledge. The host has been more elusive, recent findings identifying it as a member of the archaea, not as a sister group of the archaea. Margulis's proposal for a spirochaete origin of flagellae was abandoned by everyone except her, because no data ever came around to support the idea. Her 1967 proposal that mitochondria and plastids arose from different endosymbionts was novel. The paper presented an appealing narrative that linked the origin of mitochondria with oxygen in Earth history: cyanobacteria make oxygen, oxygen starts accumulating in the atmosphere about 2.4 billion years ago, oxygen begets oxygen-respiring bacteria that become mitochondria via symbiosis, followed by later (numerous) multiple, independent symbioses involving cyanobacteria that brought photosynthesis to eukaryotes. With the focus on oxygen, Margulis's account of eukaryote origin was however unprepared to accommodate the discovery of mitochondria in eukaryotic anaerobes. Today's oxygen narrative has it that the oceans were anoxic up until about 580 million years ago, while the atmosphere attained modern oxygen levels only about 400 million years ago. Since eukaryotes are roughly 1.6 billion years old, much of eukaryotic evolution took place in low oxygen environments, readily explaining the persistence across eukaryotic supergroups of eukaryotic anaerobes and anaerobic mitochondria at the focus of endosymbiotic theories that came after the 1967 paper.

Arguments Reinforcing the Three-Domain View of Diversified Cellular Life

The archaeal ancestor scenario (AAS) for the origin of eukaryotes implies the emergence of a new kind of organism from the fusion of ancestral archaeal and bacterial cells. Equipped with this “chimeric” molecular arsenal, the resulting cell would gradually accumulate unique genes and develop the complex molecular machineries and cellular compartments that are hallmarks of modern eukaryotes. In this regard, proteins related to phagocytosis and cell movement should be present in the archaeal ancestor, thus identifying the recently described candidate archaeal phylum “Lokiarchaeota” as resembling a possible candidate ancestor of eukaryotes. Despite its appeal, AAS seems incompatible with the genomic, molecular, and biochemical differences that exist between Archaea and Eukarya. In particular, the distribution of conserved protein domain structures in the proteomes of cellular organisms and viruses appears hard to reconcile with the AAS. In addition, concerns related to taxon and character sampling, presupposing bacterial outgroups in phylogenies, and nonuniform effects of protein domain structure rearrangement and gain/loss in concatenated alignments of protein sequences cast further doubt on AAS-supporting phylogenies. Here, we evaluate AAS against the traditional “three-domain” world of cellular organisms and propose that the discovery of Lokiarchaeota could be better reconciled under the latter view, especially in light of several additional biological and technical considerations.

(Why) Does Evolution Favour Embryogenesis?

Complex multicellular organisms typically possess life cycles in which zygotes (formed by gamete fusion) and meiosis occur. Canonical animal embryogenesis describes development from zygote to birth. It involves polarisation of the egg/zygote, asymmetric cell divisions, establishment of axes, symmetry breaking, formation of organs, and parental nutrition (at least in early stages). Similar developmental patterns have independently evolved in other eukaryotic lineages, including land plants and brown algae. The question arises whether embryo-like structures and associated developmental processes recurrently emerge because they are local optima of the evolutionary landscape. To understand which evolutionary principles govern complex multicellularity, we need to analyse why and how similar processes evolve convergently - von Baer's and Haeckel's phylotypic stage revisited in other phyla.

Eukaryotes first: how could that be?

In the half century since the formulation of the prokaryote : eukaryote dichotomy, many authors have proposed that the former evolved from something resembling the latter, in defiance of common (and possibly common sense) views. In such 'eukaryotes first' (EF) scenarios, the last universal common ancestor is imagined to have possessed significantly many of the complex characteristics of contemporary eukaryotes, as relics of an earlier 'progenotic' period or RNA world. Bacteria and Archaea thus must have lost these complex features secondarily, through 'streamlining'. If the canonical three-domain tree in which Archaea and Eukarya are sisters is accepted, EF entails that Bacteria and Archaea are convergently prokaryotic. We ask what this means and how it might be tested.

Histories of molecules: Reconciling the past

Molecular data and methods have become centrally important to evolutionary analysis, largely because they have enabled global phylogenetic reconstructions of the relationships between organisms in the tree of life. Often, however, molecular stories conflict dramatically with morphology-based histories of lineages. The evolutionary origin of animal groups provides one such case. In other instances, different molecular analyses have so far proved irreconcilable. The ancient and major divergence of eukaryotes from prokaryotic ancestors is an example of this sort of problem. Efforts to overcome these conflicts highlight the role models play in phylogenetic reconstruction. One crucial model is the molecular clock; another is that of 'simple-to-complex' modification. I will examine animal and eukaryote evolution against a backdrop of increasing methodological sophistication in molecular phylogeny, and conclude with some reflections on the nature of historical science in the molecular era of phylogeny.

Early Microbial Evolution: The Age of Anaerobes

In this article, the term "early microbial evolution" refers to the phase of biological history from the emergence of life to the diversification of the first microbial lineages. In the modern era (since we knew about archaea), three debates have emerged on the subject that deserve discussion: (1) thermophilic origins versus mesophilic origins, (2) autotrophic origins versus heterotrophic origins, and (3) how do eukaryotes figure into early evolution. Here, we revisit those debates from the standpoint of newer data. We also consider the perhaps more pressing issue that molecular phylogenies need to recover anaerobic lineages at the base of prokaryotic trees, because O2 is a product of biological evolution; hence, the first microbes had to be anaerobes. If molecular phylogenies do not recover anaerobes basal, something is wrong. Among the anaerobes, hydrogen-dependent autotrophs--acetogens and methanogens--look like good candidates for the ancestral state of physiology in the bacteria and archaea, respectively. New trees tend to indicate that eukaryote cytosolic ribosomes branch within their archaeal homologs, not as sisters to them and, furthermore tend to root archaea within the methanogens. These are major changes in the tree of life, and open up new avenues of thought. Geochemical methane synthesis occurs as a spontaneous, abiotic exergonic reaction at hydrothermal vents. The overall similarity between that reaction and biological methanogenesis fits well with the concept of a methanogenic root for archaea and an autotrophic origin of microbial physiology.

Endosymbiotic theories for eukaryote origin

For over 100 years, endosymbiotic theories have figured in thoughts about the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. More than 20 different versions of endosymbiotic theory have been presented in the literature to explain the origin of eukaryotes and their mitochondria. Very few of those models account for eukaryotic anaerobes. The role of energy and the energetic constraints that prokaryotic cell organization placed on evolutionary innovation in cell history has recently come to bear on endosymbiotic theory. Only cells that possessed mitochondria had the bioenergetic means to attain eukaryotic cell complexity, which is why there are no true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. Current versions of endosymbiotic theory have it that the host was an archaeon (an archaebacterium), not a eukaryote. Hence the evolutionary history and biology of archaea increasingly comes to bear on eukaryotic origins, more than ever before. Here, we have compiled a survey of endosymbiotic theories for the origin of eukaryotes and mitochondria, and for the origin of the eukaryotic nucleus, summarizing the essentials of each and contrasting some of their predictions to the observations. A new aspect of endosymbiosis in eukaryote evolution comes into focus from these considerations: the host for the origin of plastids was a facultative anaerobe.

The universal tree of life: an update

Biologists used to draw schematic “universal” trees of life as metaphors illustrating the history of life. It is indeed a priori possible to construct an organismal tree connecting the three major domains of ribosome encoding organisms: Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya, since they originated by cell division from LUCA. Several universal trees based on ribosomal RNA sequence comparisons proposed at the end of the last century are still widely used, although some of their main features have been challenged by subsequent analyses. Several authors have proposed to replace the traditional universal tree with a ring of life, whereas others have proposed more recently to include viruses as new domains. These proposals are misleading, suggesting that endosymbiosis can modify the shape of a tree or that viruses originated from the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). I propose here an updated version of Woese’s universal tree that includes several rootings for each domain and internal branching within domains that are supported by recent phylogenomic analyses of domain specific proteins. The tree is rooted between Bacteria and Arkarya, a new name proposed for the clade grouping Archaea and Eukarya. A consensus version, in which each of the three domains is unrooted, and a version in which eukaryotes emerged within archaea are also presented. This last scenario assumes the transformation of a modern domain into another, a controversial evolutionary pathway. Viruses are not indicated in these trees but are intrinsically present because they infect the tree from its roots to its leaves. Finally, I present a detailed tree of the domain Archaea, proposing the sub-phylum neo-Euryarchaeota for the monophyletic group of euryarchaeota containing DNA gyrase. These trees, that will be easily updated as new data become available, could be useful to discuss controversial scenarios regarding early life evolution.

Epigenetics, Darwin, and Lamarck

It is not really helpful to consider modern environmental epigenetics as neo-Lamarckian; and there is no evidence that Lamarck considered the idea original to himself. We must all keep learning about inheritance, but attributing modern ideas to early researchers is not helpful, and can be misleading.

Cooperation and selfishness both occur during molecular evolution

Perhaps the 'selfish' aspect of evolution has been over-emphasised, and organisms considered as basically selfish. However, at the macromolecular level of genes and proteins the cooperative aspect of evolution is more obvious and balances this self-centred aspect. Thousands of proteins must function together in an integrated manner to use and to produce the many molecules necessary for a functioning cell. The macromolecules have no idea whether they are functioning cooperatively or competitively with other genes and gene products (such as proteins). The cell is a giant cooperative system of thousands of genes/proteins that function together, even if it has to simultaneously resist 'parasites'. There are extensive examples of cooperative behavior among genes and proteins in both functioning cells and in the origin of life, so this cooperative nature, along with selfishness, must be considered part of normal evolution. The principles also apply to very large numbers of examples of 'positive interactions' between organisms, including both eukaryotes and akaryotes (prokaryotes). This does not negate in any way the 'selfishness' of genes - but macromolecules have no idea when they are helping, or hindering, other groups of macromolecules. We need to assert more strongly that genes, and gene products, function together as a cooperative unit.

Two fundamental questions about protein evolution

Two basic questions are considered that approach protein evolution from different directions; the problems arising from using Markov models for the deeper divergences, and then the origin of proteins themselves. The real problem for the first question (going backwards in time) is that at deeper phylogenies the Markov models of sequence evolution must lose information exponentially at deeper divergences, and several testable methods are suggested that should help resolve these deeper divergences. For the second question (coming forwards in time) a problem is that most models for the origin of protein synthesis do not give a role for the very earliest stages of the process. From our knowledge of the importance of replication accuracy in limiting the length of a coding molecule, a testable hypothesis is proposed. The length of the code, the code itself, and tRNAs would all have prior roles in increasing the accuracy of RNA replication; thus proteins would have been formed only after the tRNAs and the length of the triplet code are already formed. Both questions lead to testable predictions.