Modern mRNA proofreading and repair: clues that the last universal common ancestor possessed an RNA genome?

The non-monophyletic origin of the tRNA molecule and the origin of genes only after the evolutionary stage of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA)

A model has been proposed suggesting that the tRNA molecule must have originated by direct duplication of an RNA hairpin structure [Di Giulio, M., 1992. On the origin of the transfer RNA molecule. J. Theor. Biol. 159, 199-214]. A non-monophyletic origin of this molecule has also been theorized [Di Giulio, M., 1999. The non-monophyletic origin of tRNA molecule. J. Theor. Biol. 197, 403-414]. In other words, the tRNA genes evolved only after the evolutionary stage of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) through the assembly of two minigenes codifying for different RNA hairpin structures, which is what the exon theory of genes suggests when it is applied to the model of tRNA origin. Recent observations strongly corroborate this theorization because it has been found that some tRNA genes are completely separate in two minigenes codifying for the 5' and 3' halves of this molecule [Randau, L., et al., 2005a. Nanoarchaeum equitans creates functional tRNAs from separate genes for their 5'- and 3'-halves. Nature 433, 537-541]. In this paper it is shown that these tRNA genes codifying for the 5' and 3' halves of this molecule are the ancestral form from which the tRNA genes continuously codifying for the complete tRNA molecule are thought to have evolved. This, together with the very existence of completely separate tRNA genes codifying for their 5' and 3' halves, proves a non-monophyletic origin for tRNA genes, as a monophyletic origin would exclude the existence of these genes which have, on the contrary, been observed. Here the polyphyletic origin of genes codifying for proteins is also suggested and discussed. Moreover, a hypothesis is advanced to suggest that the LUCA might have had a fragmented genome made up of RNA and the possibility that 'Paleokaryotes' may exist is outlined. Finally, the characteristic of the indivisibility of homology that these polyphyletic origins seem to remove at the sequence level is discussed.

Getting from an RNA world to modern cells just got a little easier

Our understanding of the early steps in the evolution of life is hampered by a Catch-22: Darwinian selection leading to longer genomes requires as prerequisite increased replicative fidelity. Yet a genome at capacity cannot increase in size; it will be catastrophically mutated out of existence if fidelity has not already increased. Traditionally the problem has been considered for genotypes but can be down-sized if multiple genotypes specify the same phenotype. Kun and colleagues put empirical meat on theoretical bone by analysing ribozyme mutagenesis data, concluding that modest replication fidelities could permit a primordial genome with up to 100 genes.

Three RNA cells for ribosomal lineages and three DNA viruses to replicate their genomes: a hypothesis for the origin of cellular domain

The division of the living world into three cellular domains, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya, is now generally accepted. However, there is no consensus about the evolutionary relationships among these domains, because all of the proposed models have a number of more or less severe pitfalls. Another drawback of current models for the universal tree of life is the exclusion of viruses, otherwise a major component of the biosphere. Recently, it was suggested that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes occurred in the viral world, and that cellular DNA and its replication machineries originated via transfers from DNA viruses to RNA cells. Here, I explore the possibility that three such independent transfers were at the origin of Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya, respectively. The reduction of evolutionary rates following the transition from RNA to DNA genomes would have stabilized the three canonical versions of proteins involved in translation, whereas the existence of three different founder DNA viruses explains why each domain has its specific DNA replication apparatus. In that model, plasmids can be viewed as transitional forms between DNA viruses and cellular chromosomes, and the formation of different levels of cellular organization (prokaryote or eukaryote) could be traced back to the nature of the founder DNA viruses and RNA cells.

On the origin of genomes and cells within inorganic compartments

Building on the model of Russell and Hall for the emergence of life at a warm submarine hydrothermal vent, we suggest that, within a hydrothermally formed system of contiguous iron-sulfide (FeS) compartments, populations of virus-like RNA molecules, which eventually encoded one or a few proteins each, became the agents of both variation and selection. The initial darwinian selection was for molecular self-replication. Combinatorial sorting of genetic elements among compartments would have resulted in preferred proliferation and selection of increasingly complex molecular ensembles--those compartment contents that achieved replication advantages. The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) we propose was not free-living but an inorganically housed assemblage of expressed and replicable genetic elements. The evolution of the enzymatic systems for (i) DNA replication; and (ii) membrane and cell wall biosynthesis, enabled independent escape of the first archaebacterial and eubacterial cells from their hydrothermal hatchery, within which the LUCA itself remained confined.

[Luca: the last universal common ancestor]

One of the most important outcomes of modern biology has been the demonstration of the unity of life. All living beings are in fact descendants of a unique ancestor commonly referred to as Luca (the Last universal common ancestor). The discovery - nearly 30 years ago by Carl Woese - that present-day life on our planet can be assigned to only three domains: two of prokaryotic nature (Archaea and Bacteria), and one eukaryoyic (Eucarya), has given birth to a new field of investigation aimed at determining the nature of Luca. Today, thanks to the accumulation of genomic data, we can loop back into the past and infer a few characters of Luca by comparing what present-day organisms have in common. For example, it is now clear that Luca was a cellular organism provided with a cytoplasmic membrane, and that it harboured already a quite sophisticated translation apparatus. However, the inference of other characters of Luca from comparative genomics is less straightforward: for instance, a few key molecular mechanisms for DNA replication are non-homologous across the three domains and their distribution is often puzzling. This evidence has been embraced by proponents of the hypothesis that Luca harboured an RNA genome and that its replacement by DNA and the appearance of the corresponding molecular systems would have occurred independently in the three life domains after their divergence. However, an equally likely scenario would be that of a Luca with a DNA genome and of a subsequent replacement of its DNA-replication systems by non-homologous counterparts either in the bacterial or in the archaeal/eukaroytic branch. Nevertheless, including the viral world into the picture of the tree of life may thus provide us with precious insights into our most distant past since the invention and spread potential of viruses may have played a key role in early evolution.

On being the right size

The first replicating molecules were probably composed of RNA and undoubtedly small, limited in size by a self-destructing error rate. A new study shows that a relatively minor increase in replication fidelity may have had a large effect on the size, and hence complexity, of early replicators.