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 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.

Indirect Routes to Aminoacyl-tRNA: The Diversity of Prokaryotic Cysteine Encoding Systems

Universally present aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs) stringently recognize their cognate tRNAs and acylate them with one of the proteinogenic amino acids. However, some organisms possess aaRSs that deviate from the accurate translation of the genetic code and exhibit relaxed specificity toward their tRNA and/or amino acid substrates. Typically, these aaRSs are part of an indirect pathway in which multiple enzymes participate in the formation of the correct aminoacyl-tRNA product. The indirect cysteine (Cys)-tRNA pathway, originally thought to be restricted to methanogenic archaea, uses the unique O-phosphoseryl-tRNA synthetase (SepRS), which acylates the non-proteinogenic amino acid O-phosphoserine (Sep) onto tRNACys. Together with Sep-tRNA:Cys-tRNA synthase (SepCysS) and the adapter protein SepCysE, SepRS forms a transsulfursome complex responsible for shuttling Sep-tRNACys to SepCysS for conversion of the tRNA-bound Sep to Cys. Here, we report a comprehensive bioinformatic analysis of the diversity of indirect Cys encoding systems. These systems are present in more diverse groups of bacteria and archaea than previously known. Given the occurrence and distribution of some genes consistently flanking SepRS, it is likely that this gene was part of an ancient operon that suffered a gradual loss of its original components. Newly identified bacterial SepRS sequences strengthen the suggestion that this lineage of enzymes may not rely on the m1G37 identity determinant in tRNA. Some bacterial SepRSs possess an N-terminal fusion resembling a threonyl-tRNA synthetase editing domain, which interestingly is frequently observed in the vicinity of archaeal SepCysS genes. We also found several highly degenerate SepRS genes that likely have altered amino acid specificity. Cross-analysis of selenocysteine (Sec)-utilizing traits confirmed the co-occurrence of SepCysE and the Sec-utilizing machinery in archaea, but also identified an unusual O-phosphoseryl-tRNASec kinase fusion with an archaeal Sec elongation factor in some lineages, where it may serve in place of SepCysE to prevent crosstalk between the two minor aminoacylation systems. These results shed new light on the variations in SepRS and SepCysS enzymes that may reflect adaptation to lifestyle and habitat, and provide new information on the evolution of the genetic code.

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.

On the Track of the Missing tRNA Genes: A Source of Non-Canonical Functions?

Cellular tRNAs appear today as a diverse population of informative macromolecules with conserved general elements ensuring essential common functions and different and distinctive features securing specific interactions and activities. Their differential expression and the variety of post-transcriptional modifications they are subject to, lead to the existence of complex repertoires of tRNA populations adjusted to defined cellular states. Despite the tRNA-coding genes redundancy in prokaryote and eukaryote genomes, it is surprising to note the absence of genes coding specific translational-active isoacceptors throughout the phylogeny. Through the analysis of different releases of tRNA databases, this review aims to provide a general summary about those “missing tRNA genes.” This absence refers to both tRNAs that are not encoded in the genome, as well as others that show critical sequence variations that would prevent their activity as canonical translation adaptor molecules. Notably, while a group of genes are universally missing, others are absent in particular kingdoms. Functional information available allows to hypothesize that the exclusion of isodecoding molecules would be linked to: 1) reduce ambiguities of signals that define the specificity of the interactions in which the tRNAs are involved; 2) ensure the adaptation of the translational apparatus to the cellular state; 3) divert particular tRNA variants from ribosomal protein synthesis to other cellular functions. This leads to consider the “missing tRNA genes” as a source of putative non-canonical tRNA functions and to broaden the concept of adapter molecules in ribosomal-dependent protein synthesis.

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.