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

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.

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.

Evolutionary origin of B family DNA-dependent DNA polymerases from retrotranscriptases

The evolution of DNA and DNA polymerases was a crucial step in the evolution of life on Earth. In the present work, we reconstruct the ancestral sequence and structure for the B family polymerases. Using comparative analyses, we infer the transient state between the ancestor retrotranscriptase and the contemporary B family DNA polymerases. Exonuclease motif was detected in the primary ancestral sequence, as well as an elongation-functioning motif. It is remarkable that the ancestral molecule is more comparable to the retrotranscriptases in terms of structural domains, even though we discovered similarities in the primary sequence with proteins from the B family of DNA polymerases. The present B family proteins differ structurally from retrotranscriptases the most, although the reconstruction of the ancestor protein was able to capture the transitional steps between these two families of polymerases.

Origin of life: Drawing the big picture

Trying to provide a broad overview about the origin of life in Earth, the most significant transitions of life before cells are listed and discussed. The current approach emphasizes the symbiotic relationships that emerged with life. We propose a rational, stepwise scenario for the origin of life that starts with the origin of the first biomolecules and steps forward until the origins of the first cells. Along this path, we aim to provide a brief, though comprehensive theoretical model that will consider the following steps: (i) how nucleotides and other biomolecules could be made prebiotically in specific prebiotic refuges; (ii) how the first molecules of RNAs were formed; (iii) how the proto-peptidyl transferase center was built by the concatenation of proto-tRNAs; (iv) how the ribosome and the genetic code could be structured; (v) how progenotes could live and reproduce as "naked" ribonucleoprotein molecules; (vi) how peptides started to bind molecules in the prebiotic soup allowing biochemical pathways to evolve from those bindings; (vii) how genomes got bigger by the symbiotic relationship of progenotes and lateral transference of genetic material; (viii) how the progenote LUCA has been formed by assembling most biochemical routes; (ix) how the first virion capsids probably emerged and evolved; (x) how phospholipid membranes emerged probably twice by the evolution of lipid-binding proteins; (xi) how DNA synthesis have been formed in parallel in Bacteria and Archaea; and, finally, (xii) how DNA-based cells of Bacteria and Archaeabacteria have been constituted. The picture provided is conjectural and present epistemological gaps. Future research will help to advance into the elucidation of gaps and confirmation/refutation of current statements.

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.

RNP-world: The ultimate essence of life is a ribonucleoprotein process

The fundamental essence of life is based on process of interaction between nucleic acids and proteins. In a prebiotic world, amino acids, peptides, ions, and other metabolites acted in protobiotic routes at the same time on which RNAs performed catalysis and self-replication. Nevertheless, it was only when nucleic acids and peptides started to interact together in an organized process that life emerged. First, the ignition was sparked with the formation of a Peptidyl Transferase Center (PTC), possibly by concatenation of proto-tRNAs. This molecule that would become the catalytic site of ribosomes started a process of self-organization that gave origin to a protoorganism named FUCA, a ribonucleic ribosomal-like apparatus capable to polymerize amino acids. In that sense, we review hypotheses about the origin and early evolution of the genetic code. Next, populations of open biological systems named progenotes were capable of accumulating and exchanging genetic material, producing the first genomes. Progenotes then evolved in two paths: some presented their own ribosomes and others used available ribosomes in the medium to translate their encoded information. At some point, two different types of organisms emerged from populations of progenotes: the ribosome-encoding organisms (cells) and the capsid-encoding organisms (viruses).

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.

Life and living beings under the perspective of organic macrocodes

A powerful and concise concept of life is crucial for studies aiming to understand the characteristics that emerged from an inorganic world. Among biologists, the most accepted argument define life under a top-down strategy by looking into the shared characteristics observed in all cellular organisms. This is often made highlighting (i) autonomy and (ii) evolutionary capacity as fundamental characteristics observed in all cellular organisms. Along the present work, we assume the framework of code biology considering that biology started with the emergence of the first organic code by self-organization. We reinforces that the conceptual structure of life should be reallocated from the ontology class of Matter to its sister class of Process. Along the emergence and early evolution of biological systems, biological codes changed from open systems of "naked" molecules (at the progenote era), to close, encapsulated systems (at the organismic era). Living beings appeared at the very moment when nucleic acids with coding properties became encapsulated. This led to the origin of viruses and, then, to the origin of cells. In this context, we propose that the single character that makes a clear distinction between the abiotic and the biotic world is the capacity to process organic codes. Thus, life appears with the self-assembly of a genetic code and evolves by the emergence of other overlapping codes. Once life has been clearly conceptualized, we go further to conceptualize organisms, parents, lineages, and species in terms of code biology.

From RNA to DNA: Insights about the transition of informational molecule in the biological systems based on the structural proximity between the polymerases

Structural relations in an evolutionary context of polymerases is crucial to gain insights into the transition from an RNA world to a Ribonucleoprotein world. Herein, we present a structural proximity tree for the polymerases, from which we observe that the enzymes that have RNA as substrate are more homogeneous than the group with DNA as substrate. The homogeneity observed in enzymes with RNA as a substrate, may be because they performed all steps in information processing. In this sense, the emergence of the DNA molecule posed new challenges to the biological systems, where several parts of the informational flow were individualized by the emergence of enzymes for each step. From the data presented, we propose a polymerase diversification model, in which we have RNA-dependent RNA polymerases as an ancestor and all other polymerases diverged directly from this group by a radiation process.

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.