The RNase P, LUCA, the ancestors of the life domains, the progenote, and the tree of life

The existence of the two domains of life, Bacteria and Archaea, would in itself imply that LUCA and the ancestors of these domains were progenotes

The length of the deepest branches of the tree of life would tend to support the hypothesis that the distance of the branch that separates the sequences of archaea from those of bacteria, i.e. the interdomain one, is longer than the intradomain ones, i.e. those that separate the sequences of archaea and those of bacteria within them. Why should interdomain distance be larger than intradomain distances? The fact that the rate of amino acid substitutions was slowed as the domains of life appeared would seem to imply an evolutionary transition. The slowdown in the speed of evolution that occurred during the formation of the two domains of life would be the consequence of the progenote- > cell evolutionary transition. Indeed, the evolutionary stage of the progenote being characterized by an accelerated tempo and mode of evolution might explain the considerable interdomain distance because the accumulation of many amino acid substitutions on this branch would indicate the progenote stage that is also characterized by a high rate of amino acid substitutions. Furthermore, the fact that intradomain distances are smaller than interdomain distances would corroborate the hypothesis of the achievement of cellularity at the appearance of the main phyletic lineages. Indeed, the cell stage, unlike the progenotic one, definitively establishes the relationship between the genotype and phenotype, lowering the rate of evolution. Therefore, the arguments presented lead to the conclusion that LUCA was a progenote.

The genetic code is not universal

Recently, a new genetic code with 62 sense codons, coding for 21 amino acids, and only 2 termination codons has been identified in archaea. The authors argue that the appearance of this variant of the genetic code is due to the relatively recent and complete recoding of all UAG stop codons to codons encoding for pyrrolysine. I re-evaluate this discovery by presenting arguments that favour the early, i.e. ancestral, appearance of this variant of the genetic code during the origin of the genetic code itself. These arguments are capable of supporting that during the origin of the organization of the genetic code, at least two versions of the genetic code evolved in the domain of the Archaea. Thus, the genetic code would not be absolutely universal.

The polyphyletic origins of glycyl-tRNA synthetase and lysyl-tRNA synthetase and their implications

I analyzed the polyphyletic origin of glycyl-tRNA synthetase (GlyRS) and lysyl-tRNA synthetase (LysRS), making plausible the following implications. The fact that the genetic code needed to evolve aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (ARSs) only very late would be in perfect agreement with a late origin, in the main phyletic lineages, of both GlyRS and LysRS. Indeed, as suggested by the coevolution theory, since the genetic code was structured by biosynthetic relationships between amino acids and as these occurred on tRNA-like molecules which were evidently already loaded with amino acids during its structuring, this made possible a late origin of ARSs. All this corroborates the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code to the detriment of theories which would instead predict an early intervention of the action of ARSs in organizing the genetic code. Furthermore, the assembly of the GlyRS and LysRS protein domains in main phyletic lineages is itself at least evidence of the possibility that ancestral genes were assembled using pieces of genetic material that coded these protein domains. This is in accordance with the exon theory of genes which postulates that ancestral exons coded for protein domains or modules that were assembled to form the first genes. This theory is exemplified precisely in the evolution of both GlyRS and LysRS which occurred through the assembly of protein domains in the main phyletic lineages, as analyzed here. Furthermore, this late assembly of protein domains of these proteins into the two main phyletic lineages, i.e. a polyphyletic origin of both GlyRS and LysRS, appears to corroborate the progenote evolutionary stage for both LUCA and at least the first part of the evolutionary stages of the ancestor of bacteria and that of archaea. Indeed, this polyphyletic origin would imply that the genetic code was still evolving because at least two ARSs, i.e. proteins that make the genetic code possible today, were still evolving. This would imply that the evolutionary stages involved were characterized not by cells but by protocells, that is, by progenotes because this is precisely the definition of a progenote. This conclusion would be strengthened by the observation that both GlyRS and LysRS originating in the phyletic lineages leading to bacteria and archaea, would demonstrate that, more generally, proteins were most likely still in rapid and progressive evolution. Namely, a polyphyletic origin of proteins which would qualify at least the initial phase of the evolutionary stage of the ancestor of bacteria and that of archaea as stages belonging to the progenote.

The time of appearance of the genetic code

I support the hypothesis that the origin of the genetic code occurred simultaneously with the evolution of cellularity. That is to say, I favour the hypothesis that the origin of the genetic code is a very, very late event in the history of life on Earth. I corroborate this hypothesis with observations favouring the progenote's stage for the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), for the ancestor of bacteria and that of archaea. Indeed, these progenotic stages would imply that - at that time - the origin of the genetic code was still ongoing simply because this origin would fall within the very definition of progenote. Therefore, if the evolution of cellularity had truly been coeval with the origin of the genetic code - at least in its terminal part - then this would favour theories such as the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code because this theory would postulate that this origin must have occurred in extremely complex protocellular conditions and not concerning stereochemical or physicochemical interactions having to do with other stages of the origin of life. In this sense, the coevolution theory would be corroborated while the stereochemical and physicochemical theories would be damaged. Therefore, the origin of the genetic code would be linked to the origin of the cell and not to the origin of life as sometimes asserted. Therefore, I will discuss the late hypothesis of the origin of the genetic code in the context of the theories proposed to explain this origin and more generally of its implications for the early evolution of life.

A Proposal of the Ur-RNAome

It is widely accepted that the earliest RNA molecules were folded into hairpins or mini-helixes. Herein, we depict the 2D and 3D conformations of those earliest RNA molecules with only RNY triplets, which Eigen proposed as the primeval genetic code. We selected 26 species (13 bacteria and 13 archaea). We found that the free energy of RNY hairpins was consistently lower than that of their corresponding shuffled controls. We found traces of the three ribosomal RNAs (16S, 23S, and 5S), tRNAs, 6S RNA, and the RNA moieties of RNase P and the signal recognition particle. Nevertheless, at this stage of evolution there was no genetic code (as seen in the absence of the peptidyl transferase centre and any vestiges of the anti-Shine-Dalgarno sequence). Interestingly, we detected the anticodons of both glycine (GCC) and threonine (GGU) in the hairpins of proto-tRNA.

The absence of the evolutionary state of the Prokaryote would imply a polyphyletic origin of proteins and that LUCA, the ancestor of bacteria and that of archaea were progenotes

I analysed the similarity gradient observed in protein families - of phylogenetically deep fundamental traits - of bacteria and archaea, ranging from cases such as the core of the DNA replication apparatus where there is no sequence similarity between the proteins involved, to cases in which, as in the translation initiation factors, only some proteins involved would be homologs, to cases such as for aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases in which most of the proteins involved would be homologs. This pattern of similarity between bacteria and archaea would seem to be a very clear indication of a transitional evolutionary stage that preceded both the Last Bacterial Common Ancestor and the Last Archaeal Common Ancestor, i.e. progenotic stages. Indeed, this similarity pattern would seem to exemplify an ongoing transition as all the evolutionary phases would be represented in it. Instead, in the cellular stage it is expected that these evolutionary phases should have already been overcome, i.e. completed, and therefore no longer detectable. In fact, if we had really been in the presence of the prokaryotic stage then we should not have observed this similarity pattern in proteins involved in defining the ancestral characters of bacteria and archaea, as the completion of the different cellular structures should have required a very low number of proteins to be late evolved in lineages leading to bacteria and archaea. Indeed, the already reached state of the Prokaryote would have determined complete cellular structures therefore a total absence of proteins to evolve independently in the two main phyletic lineages and able to complete the evolution of a particular character already evidently in a definitive state, which, on the other hand, does not appear to have been the case. All this would have prevented the formation of this pattern of similarity which instead would appear to be real. In conclusion, the existence of this pattern of similarity observed in the families of homologous proteins of bacteria and archaea would imply the absence of the evolutionary stage of the Prokaryote and consequently a progenotic status to be assigned to the LUCA. Indeed, the LUCA stage would have been a stage of evolutionary transition because it is belatedly marked by the presence of all the different evolutionary phases, evidently more easily interpretable within the definition of progenote than that of genote precisely because they are inherent in an evolutionary transition and not to an evolution that has already been achieved. Finally, I discuss the importance of these arguments for the polyphyletic origin of proteins.

Decoding viruses: An alternative perspective on their history, origins and role in nature

This article provides an alternative perspective on viruses, exploring their origins, ecology, and evolution. Viruses are recognized as the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, permeating nearly all environments and forming the virosphere-a significant biological layer. They play a crucial role in regulating bacterial populations within ecosystems and holobionts, influencing microbial communities and nutrient recycling. Viruses are also key drivers of molecular evolution, actively participating in the maintenance and regulation of ecosystems and cellular organisms. Many eukaryotic genomes contain genomic elements with viral origins, which contribute to organismal equilibrium and fitness. Viruses are involved in the generation of species-specific orphan genes, facilitating adaptation and the development of unique traits in biological lineages. They have been implicated in the formation of vital structures like the eukaryotic nucleus and the mammalian placenta. The presence of virus-specific genes absent in cellular organisms suggests that viruses may pre-date cellular life. Like progenotes, viruses are ribonucleoprotein entities with simpler capsid architectures compared to proteolipidic membranes. This article presents a comprehensive scenario describing major transitions in prebiotic evolution and proposes that viruses emerged prior to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) during the progenote era. However, it is important to note that viruses do not form a monophyletic clade, and many viral taxonomic groups originated more recently as reductions of cellular structures. Thus, viral architecture should be seen as an ancient and evolutionarily stable strategy adopted by biological systems. The goal of this article is to reshape perceptions of viruses, highlighting their multifaceted significance in the complex tapestry of life and fostering a deeper understanding of their origins, ecological impact, and evolutionary dynamics.

Natural History of DNA-Dependent DNA Polymerases: Multiple Pathways to the Origins of DNA

One of the major evolutionary transitions that led to DNA replacing RNA as the primary informational molecule in biological systems is still the subject of an intense debate in the scientific community. DNA polymerases are currently split into various families. Families A, B, and C are the most significant. In bacteria and some types of viruses, enzymes from families A and C predominate, whereas family B enzymes are more common in Archaea, Eukarya, and some types of viruses. A phylogenetic analysis of these three families of DNA polymerase was carried out. We assumed that reverse transcriptase was the ancestor of DNA polymerases. Our findings suggest that families A and C emerged and organized themselves when the earliest bacterial lineages had diverged, and that these earliest lineages had RNA genomes that were in transition—that is, the information was temporally stored in DNA molecules that were continuously being produced by reverse transcription. The origin of DNA and the apparatus for its replication in the mitochondrial ancestors may have occurred independently of DNA and the replication machinery of other bacterial lineages, according to these two alternate modes of genetic material replication. The family C enzymes emerged in a particular bacterial lineage before being passed to viral lineages, which must have functioned by disseminating this machinery to the other lineages of bacteria. Bacterial DNA viruses must have evolved at least twice independently, in addition to the requirement that DNA have arisen twice in bacterial lineages. We offer two possible scenarios based on what we know about bacterial DNA polymerases. One hypothesis contends that family A was initially produced and spread to the other lineages through viral lineages before being supplanted by the emergence of family C and acquisition at that position of the principal replicative polymerase. The evidence points to the independence of these events and suggests that the viral lineage’s acquisition of cellular replicative machinery was crucial for the establishment of a DNA genome in the other bacterial lineages, since these viral lineages may have served as a conduit for the machinery’s delivery to other bacterial lineages that diverged with the RNA genome. Our data suggest that family B initially established itself in viral lineages and was transferred to ancestral Archaea lineages before the group diversified; thus, the DNA genome must have emerged first in this cellular lineage. Our data point to multiple evolutionary steps in the origins of DNA polymerase, having started off at least twice in the bacterial lineage and once in the archaeal lineage. Given that viral lineages are implicated in a significant portion of the distribution of DNA replication equipment in both bacterial (families A and C) and Archaeal lineages (family A), our data point to a complex scenario.