The universal ancestor, the deeper nodes of the tree of life, and the fundamental types of primary cells (cellular domains)

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 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 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.

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.

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

I have tried to interpret the phylogenetic distribution of the RNase P with the aim of helping to clarify the stage reached by the evolution of cellularity in the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA); that is to say, if the evolutionary stage of the LUCA was represented by a protocell (progenote) or by a complete cell (genote). Since there are several arguments that lead one to believe that only the RNA moiety of the RNase P was present in the LUCA, this might imply that this evolutionary stage was actually the RNA world. If true this would imply that the LUCA was a progenote because the RNA world being a world subject to multiple evolutionary transitions that would involve a high noise at many its levels, which would fall within the definition of the progenote. Furthermore, since RNA-mediated catalysis is much less efficient than protein-mediated catalysis, then the only RNA moiety that was present in the LUCA could imply - by per se, without invoking the existence of the RNA world - that the LUCA was a progenote because an inefficient catalysis might have characterized this evolutionary stage. This evolutionary stage would still fall under the definition of the progenote. In addition, the observation that the protein moieties of the RNase P of bacteria and archaea are not-homologs would imply that these originated independently in the two main phyletic lineages. In turn, this would imply the progenotic nature of the ancestors of both archaea and bacteria. Indeed, it is admissible that such a late origin - in the main phyletic lineages - of the protein moieties of the RNase P is witness to an evolutionary transition towards a more efficient catalysis, evidently made clear precisely by the evolution of the protein moieties of the RNase P which would have helped the RNA of the RNase P to a more efficient catalysis. Hence, this would date that evolutionary moment as a transition to a much more efficient catalysis and consequently would imply which in that evolutionary stage there was the actual transition from the progenotic to genotic status. Finally, this late origin of the RNase P protein moieties in the bacterial and archaeal domains per se could imply the presence of a progenotic stage for their ancestors, or at least that a cell stage would have been much less likely. In fact, it is true that genes can originate both in a cellular and in a progenotic stage, but they mainly typify the latter because they are, by definition, in formation. Then it is expected that in the evolutionary stage of the formation of the main phyletic lineages - that is to say, in an evolutionary time in which the formation of genes might be expected - that the origin of proteins is to be related to a rapid and progressive evolution typical of the progenote precisely because in such an evolutionary stage the origin of genes is more easily and simply explained as reflecting a progenotic rather than a genotic stage. Indeed, if instead the evolutionary stage of the ancestors of bacteria and archaea had been the cellular one, then observing the origin of the protein moieties of the RNase P would have been, to some extent, anomalous because this completion should have already occurred, simply because the transformation of a ribozyme into an enzyme should have already taken place precisely because it falls within the very definition of the cellular status. The conclusion is that both the LUCA and the ancestor of archaea and that of bacteria may have been progenotes. If these arguments were true then either the tree of life as commonly understood would not exist and therefore the main phyletic lineages would have originated directly from the LUCA, or there would have been at least two different populations of progenotes that would have finally defined the domain of bacteria and that of archaea.

The phylogenetic distribution of the cell division system would not imply a cellular LUCA but a progenotic LUCA

The stage reached by the evolution of cellularity in the Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA) has not yet been identified. In actual fact, it has not been clarified whether the LUCA was a cell (genote) or a protocell (progenote). Recently, Pende et al. (2021) analysed the phylogenetic distribution of the cell division system present in bacteria and archaea reaching the conclusion that LUCA was a cell and not a progenote. I find this conclusion unreasonable with respect to the observations they presented. One of the points is that the presence in the domains of life of many genes - some paralogs - which would define the membrane-remodeling superfamily would seem to imply a tempo and a mode of evolution for the LUCA more typical of the progenote than the genote. Indeed, the simultaneous presence of different genes - in a given evolutionary stage and with functions that are also partially correlated - would seem to define a heterogeneity that would appear to be the expression of a rapid and progressive evolution precisely because this evolution would have taken place in the diversification of all these genes. Furthermore, the presence of different genes coding for the function of cell division and related functions could reflect a progenotic status in LUCA, precisely because these functions might have originated from a single ancestral gene instead coding for a protein (or proteins) with multiple functions, and therefore an expression of a rapid and progressive evolution typical of the progenote. I also criticize other aspects of considerations made by Pende at al. (2021). The arguments presented here together with those existing in the literature make the hypothesis of a cellular LUCA favoured by Pende et al. (2021) unlikely.

Errors of the ancestral translation, LUCA, and nature of its direct descendants

I analyzed the implications of the observation that the methyltransferases, Trm5 and TrmD, which perform the methylation of the 37th base (m¹G37) in tRNAs of bacteria and archaea respectively, are not homologous proteins. The first implication is that these methyltransferases originated very late only when the fundamental lineages leading to bacteria and archaea had separated, otherwise the two methyltransferases would have been homologous enzymes, which they are not. The conclusion that Trm5 and TrmD originated only when the main lineages were defined would imply that at least some aspects of the translation, such as +1 frameshifting, were still in rapid and progressive evolution, that is, they were still originating. This would in itself imply a high rate of translation errors because the absence of m¹G37 from tRNAs could have determined a high rate of +1 translational frameshifting in the reading of mRNAs, identifying this stage as that of a phase of the origin of the genetic code. Furthermore, the observation that the frameshifting mechanism was still in rapid and progressive evolution in such an advanced evolutionary stage would imply that other mechanisms concerning translation were still rapidly evolving simply because it would be very unique if only the frameshifting mechanism were the only one still originating. Importantly, the observation that in archaea m¹G37 also acts as a determinant of the identity of the tRNA^Cys_GCA would imply in itself that some aspects of the origin of the genetic code were still originating, greatly strengthening the hypothesis that other aspects of the translation apparatus were still in rapid and progressive evolution. Then, all this would imply a status of progenote for LUCA and ancestors of archaea and bacteria because a high rate of translation errors would fall within the definition of progenote.

The late appearance of DNA, the nature of the LUCA and ancestors of the domains of life

It has been firmly observed that replicative DNA polymerases of bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes are not homologous proteins. This lack of homology in the replication apparatus among the domains of life is not only compatible with but would seem to imply the view that the emergence of DNA occurred in the fundamental cellular lineages. In consequence, this diversity of DNA polymerase would go back to the level of ancestors of the domains of life and to the evolutionary time in which the DNA emerged. Therefore, the presumed evolutionary stage linked to the RNA- > DNA transition would have occurred only at the level of ancestors of the main lineages of the tree of life. Thus, the high noise associated with this major evolutionary transition and the impossibility for a cellular stage to generate different fundamental genetically profound traits - such as the different replication apparatuses of bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes - would imply not only that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) was a progenote but that the ancestors of the domains of life were also at this evolutionary stage. So, I criticize the hypotheses which want, instead, that completely different cells - such as, bacteria and archaea - could have originated from a cellular LUCA.

LUCA as well as the ancestors of archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes were progenotes: Inference from the distribution and diversity of the reading mechanism of the AUA and AUG codons in the domains of life

Here I use the rationale assuming that if of a certain trait that exerts its function in some aspect of the genetic code or, more generally, in protein synthesis, it is possible to identify the evolutionary stage of its origin then it would imply that this evolutionary moment would be characterized by a high translational noise because this trait would originate for the first time during that evolutionary stage. That is to say, if this trait had a non-marginal role in the realization of the genetic code, or in protein synthesis, then the origin of this trait would imply that, more generally, it was the genetic code itself that was still originating. But if the genetic code were still originating - at that precise evolutionary stage - then this would imply that there was a high translational noise which in turn would imply that it was in the presence of a protocell, i.e. a progenote that was by definition characterized by high translational noise. I apply this rationale to the mechanism of modification of the base 34 of the anticodon of an isoleucine tRNA that leads to the reading of AUA and AUG codons in archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes. The phylogenetic distribution of this mechanism in these phyletic lineages indicates that this mechanism originated only after the evolutionary stage of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), namely, during the formation of cellular domains, i.e., at the stage of ancestors of these main phyletic lineages. Furthermore, given that this mechanism of modification of the base 34 of the anticodon of the isoleucine tRNA would result to emerge at a stage of the origin of the genetic code - despite in its terminal phases - then all this would imply that the ancestors of bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes were progenotes. If so, all the more so, the LUCA would also be a progenote since it preceded these ancestors temporally. A consequence of all this reasoning might be that since these three ancestors were of the progenotes that were different from each other, if at least one of them had evolved into at least two real and different cells - basically different from each other - then the number of cellular domains would not be three but it would be greater than three.

Femtoplankton: What's New?

Since the discovery of high abundances of virus-like particles in aquatic environment, emergence of new analytical methods in microscopy and molecular biology has allowed significant advances in the characterization of the femtoplankton, i.e., floating entities filterable on a 0.2 µm pore size filter. The successive evidences in the last decade (2010-2020) of high abundances of biomimetic mineral-organic particles, extracellular vesicles, CPR/DPANN (Candidate phyla radiation/Diapherotrites, Parvarchaeota, Aenigmarchaeota, Nanoarchaeota and Nanohaloarchaeota), and very recently of aster-like nanoparticles (ALNs), show that aquatic ecosystems form a huge reservoir of unidentified and overlooked femtoplankton entities. The purpose of this review is to highlight this unsuspected diversity. Herein, we focus on the origin, composition and the ecological potentials of organic femtoplankton entities. Particular emphasis is given to the most recently discovered ALNs. All the entities described are displayed in an evolutionary context along a continuum of complexity, from minerals to cell-like living entities.

The phylogenetic distribution of the glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase and Glu-tRNAGln amidotransferase in the fundamental lineages would imply that the ancestor of archaea, that of eukaryotes and LUCA were progenotes

The function of the glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase and Glu-tRNA^Gln amidotransferase might be related to the origin of the genetic code because, for example, glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase catalyses the fundamental reaction that makes the genetic code. If the evolutionary stage of the origin of these two enzymes could be unambiguously identified, then the genetic code should still have been originating at that particular evolutionary stage because the fundamental reaction that makes the code itself was still evidently evolving. This would result in that particular evolutionary moment being attributed to the evolutionary stage of the progenote because it would have a relationship between the genotype and the phenotype not yet fully realized because the genetic code was precisely still originating. I then analyzed the distribution of the glutaminyl-tRNA synthetase and Glu-tRNA^Gln aminodotrasferase in the main phyletic lineages. Since in some cases the origin of these two enzymes can be related to the evolutionary stages of ancestors of archaea and eukaryotes, this would indicate these ancestors as progenotes because at that evolutionary moment the genetic code was evidently still evolving, thus realizing the definition of progenote. The conclusion that the ancestor of archaea and that of eukaryotes were progenotes would imply that even the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) was a progenote because it appeared, on the tree of life, temporally before these ancestors.

Viruses as a survival strategy in the armory of life

Viruses have generally been thought of as infectious agents. New data on mimivirus, however, suggests a reinterpretation of this thought. Earth's biosphere seems to contain many more viruses than previously thought and they are relevant in the maintenance of ecosystems and biodiversity. Viruses are not considered to be alive because they are not free-living entities and do not have cellular units. Current hypotheses indicate that some viruses may have been the result of genomic reduction of cellular life forms. However, new studies relating to the origins of biological systems suggest that viruses could also have originated during the transition from First to the Last Universal Common Ancestor (from FUCA to LUCA). Within this setting, life has been established as chemical informational system and could be interpreted as a macrocode of multiple layers. The first entity to acquire these features was the First Universal Common Ancestor (FUCA) that evolved to an intermediate ancestral that could be named T-LUCA (Transitional-LUCA) and be equated to Woese's concept of progenotes. T-LUCA may have remained as undifferentiated subsystems with viruses-like structures. The net result is that both cellular life forms and viruses shared protein synthesis apparatuses. In short, virus is a strategy of life reached by two paths: T-LUCAs like entities and the reduction of cellular life forms.