The non-universality of the genetic code: the universal ancestor 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 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.

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.

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.

Models of genetic code structure evolution with variable number of coded labels

It is assumed that at the early stage of cell evolution its translation machinery was characterized by high noise, i.e. ambiguous assignment of codons to amino acids in the genetic code, which initially encoded only few amino acids. Next, during its evolution new amino acids were added to this code. Taking into account this facts, we investigated theoretical models of genetic code's structure, which evolved from a set of ambiguous codons assignments into a coding system with a low level of uncertainty. We considered three types of translational inaccuracies assuming a different number of fixed codon positions. We applied a modified version of evolutionary algorithm for finding the genetic codes that the most effectively reduced the initial uncertainty in the assignment of codons to encoded labels, i.e. amino acids and a stop translation signal. We examined codes with the number of labels from four to 22. Our results indicated that the quality of genetic code structure is strongly dependent on the number of encoded labels as well as the type of translational mechanism. The more strict assignments of codon to the labels was preferred by the codes encoding more number of labels. The results showed that a smaller degeneracy of codes evolved from a more tolerant coding with the stepwise addition of coded amino acids to the genetic code. The distribution of codon groups in the standard genetic code corresponds well to the translation model assuming two fixed codon positions, whereas the six-codon groups can be relics form previous stages of evolution when the code characterized by a greater uncertainty.

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 origin of the genetic code and origin of ideas

Inouye et al. (2020) use the observation that Ser is coded in the genetic code by two blocks of codons that differ on more than one base to understand some aspects of the origin of the genetic code organization. I argue instead that this observation per se cannot be used to understand any aspect of the origin of the genetic code, unless it is accompanied by other assumptions concerning in the specific case: (i) the ancestrality of some amino acids, (ii) the hypothesis that the first mRNA to be translated was poly-G, which can be translated into poly-Gly, and (iii) an evolutionary mechanism for the genetic code origin based on the duplication of tRNAs. However, both the tRNA duplication mechanism and the existence of poly-G as the first mRNA to be translated are not corroborated as mechanisms through which the genetic code would have been structured. For example, the origin of the actual mRNA should have been preceded by the evolution of a proto-mRNA which evidently already coded for more than one amino acid. Therefore, when it evolved from proto-mRNA, the mRNA should already have coded for more than one amino acid. In other words, poly-G as mRNA would most likely never have existed because the first mRNAs already had to code for more than one amino acid. On the contrary, all these assumptions would have been operational if the observations of Inouye et al. (2020) had been discussed within the coevolution theory of the origin of the genetic code, which they do not.

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.

One-carbon metabolism, folate, zinc and translation

The translation process, central to life, is tightly connected to the one-carbon (1-C) metabolism via a plethora of macromolecule modifications and specific effectors. Using manual genome annotations and putting together a variety of experimental studies, we explore here the possible reasons of this critical interaction, likely to have originated during the earliest steps of the birth of the first cells. Methionine, S-adenosylmethionine and tetrahydrofolate dominate this interaction. Yet, 1-C metabolism is unlikely to be a simple frozen accident of primaeval conditions. Reactive 1-C species (ROCS) are buffered by the translation machinery in a way tightly associated with the metabolism of iron-sulfur clusters, zinc and potassium availability, possibly coupling carbon metabolism to nitrogen metabolism. In this process, the highly modified position 34 of tRNA molecules plays a critical role. Overall, this metabolic integration may serve both as a protection against the deleterious formation of excess carbon under various growth transitions or environmental unbalanced conditions and as a regulator of zinc homeostasis, while regulating input of prosthetic groups into nascent proteins. This knowledge should be taken into account in metabolic engineering.

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.

The evolution of the genetic code took place in an anaerobic environment

We have compared orthologous proteins from an aerobic organism, Cytophaga hutchinsonii, and from an obligate anaerobe, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron. This comparison allows us to define the oxyphobic ranks of amino acids, i.e. a scale of the relative sensitivity to oxygen of the amino acid residues. The oxyphobic index (OI), which can be simply obtained from the amino acids' oxyphobic ranks, can be associated to any protein and therefore 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. Sampling of the OI variable from the proteins of obligate anaerobes and aerobes has established that the OI value of the genetic code is not significantly different from the mean OI value of anaerobe proteins, while it is different from that of aerobe proteins. This observation would seem to suggest that the terminal phases of the evolution of genetic code organization took place in an anaerobic environment. This result is discussed in the framework of hypotheses suggested to explain the timing of the evolutionary appearance of the aerobic metabolism.

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.

On the optimality of the genetic code, with the consideration of termination codons

The existence of nonrandom patterns in codon assignments is supported by many statistical and biochemical studies. The canonical genetic code is known to be highly efficient in minimizing the effects of mistranslation errors and point mutations. For example, it is known that when an error induces the conversion of an amino acid to another, the biochemical properties of the resulting amino acid are usually very similar to that of the original. Prior studies include many attempts at quantitative estimation of the fraction of randomly generated codes which, based upon load minimization, score higher than the canonical genetic code. In this study, we took into consideration both the relative frequencies of amino acids and nonsense mistranslations, factors which had been previously ignored. Incorporation of these parameters, resulted in a fitness function (phi) which rendered the canonical genetic code to be highly optimized with respect to load minimization. Considering termination codons, we applied a biosynthetic version of the coevolution theory, however, with low significance. We employed a revised cost for the precursor-product pairs of amino acids and showed that the significance of this approach depends on the cost measure matrix used by the researcher. Thus, we have compared the two prominent matrices, point accepted mutations 74-100 (PAM(74-100)) and mutation matrix in our study.

The early phases of genetic code origin: conjectures on the evolution of coded catalysis

A review of the most significant contributions on the early phases of genetic code origin is presented. After stressing the importance of the key intermediary role played in protein synthesis, by peptidyl-tRNA, which is attributed with a primary function in ancestral catalysis, the general lines leading to the codification of the first amino acids in the genetic code are discussed. This is achieved by means of a model of protoribosome evolution which sees protoribosome as the central organiser of ancestral biosynthesis and the mediator of the encounter between compounds (metabolite-pre-tRNAs) and catalysts (peptidyl-pre-tRNAs). The encounter between peptidyl-pre-tRNA catalysts in protoribosome is favoured by metabolic pre-mRNAs and later resulted (given the high temperature at which this evolution is supposed to have taken place) in the evolution of mRNAs with codons of the type GNS. These mRNAs codified only for those amino acids that the coevolution theory of genetic code origin sees as the precursors of all other amino acids. Some aspects of the model here discussed might be rendered real by the transfer-messenger RNA molecule (tmRNA) which is here considered a molecular fossil of ancestral protein synthesis.

Genetic material in the early evolution of bacteria

DNA and RNA are nucleic acids that cells and viruses use to produce copies of themselves. However, there is an immense paucity of knowledge on how these nucleic acids originated and changed as early bacteria became capable of growth and cell division. One possibility is that parallel evolution of the genetic code and protein synthesis was required for assembly of the first cells capable of growth and division. It is also possible that DNA-RNA duplices were intermediate genetic material in the early assembly of the first cells. These ideas will be discussed as well as other aspects of the assembly of the first cells on the Earth.