The origin of genes could be polyphyletic

Major evolutionary transitions before cells: A journey from molecules to organisms

Basing on logical assumptions and necessary steps of complexification along biological evolution, we propose here an evolutionary path from molecules to cells presenting four ages and three major transitions. At the first age, the basic biomolecules were formed and become abundant. The first transition happened with the event of a chemical symbiosis between nucleic acids and peptides worlds, which marked the emergence of both life and the process of organic encoding. FUCA, the first living process, was composed of self-replicating RNAs linked to amino acids and capable to catalyze their binding. The second transition, from the age of FUCA to the age of progenotes, involved the duplication and recombination of proto-genomes, leading to specialization in protein production and the exploration of protein to metabolite interactions in the prebiotic soup. Enzymes and metabolic pathways were incorporated into biology from protobiotic reactions that occurred without chemical catalysts, step by step. Then, the fourth age brought origin of organisms and lineages, occurring when specific proteins capable to stackle together facilitated the formation of peptidic capsids. LUCA was constituted as a progenote capable to operate the basic metabolic functions of a cell, but still unable to interact with lipid molecules. We present evidence that the evolution of lipid interaction pathways occurred at least twice, with the development of bacterial-like and archaeal-like membranes. Also, data in literature suggest at least two paths for the emergence of DNA biosynthesis, allowing the stabilization of early life strategies in viruses, archaeas and bacterias. Two billion years later, the eukaryotes arouse, and after 1,5 billion years of evolution, they finally learn how to evolve multicellularity via tissue specialization.

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.

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.

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.

RNA Rings Strengthen Hairpin Accretion Hypotheses for tRNA Evolution: A Reply to Commentaries by Z.F. Burton and M. Di Giulio

Theoretical minimal RNA ring design ensures coding over the shortest length once for each coding signal (start and stop codons, and each amino acid) and their hairpin configuration. These constraints define 25 RNA rings which surprisingly resemble ancestral tRNA loops, suggesting commonalities between RNA ring design and proto-tRNAs. RNA rings share several other properties with tRNAs, suggesting that primordial RNAs were multifunctional peptide coding sequences and structural RNAs. Two hypotheses, respectively, by M. Di Giulio and Z.F. Burton, derived from cloverleaf structural symmetries suggest that two and three, respectively, stem-loop hairpins agglutinated into tRNAs. Their authors commented that their respective structure-based hypotheses reflect better tRNA structure than RNA rings. Unlike these hypotheses, RNA ring design uses no tRNA-derived information, rendering model predictive power comparisons senseless. Some analyses of RNA ring primary and secondary structures stress RNA ring splicing in their predicted anticodon's midst, indicating ancestrality of split tRNAs, as the two-piece model predicts. Advancement of knowledge, rather than of specific hypotheses, gains foremost by examining independent hypotheses for commonalities, and only secondarily for discordances. RNA rings mimick ancestral biomolecules including tRNAs, and their evolution, and constitute an interesting synthetic system for early prebiotic evolution tests/simulations.

Nothing about protein structure classification makes sense except in the light of evolution

In this, the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, it is fitting to revisit the classification of protein structures from an evolutionary perspective. Existing classifications use homologous sequence relationships, but knowing that structure is much more conserved that sequence creates an iterative loop from which structures can be further classified beyond that of the domain, thereby teasing out distant evolutionary relationships. The desired classification scheme is then one in which a fold is merely semantics and structure can be classified as either ancestral or derived.

Pseudo-replication of [GADV]-proteins and origin of life

The RNA world hypothesis on the origin of life is generally considered as the key to solve the “chicken and egg dilemma” concerning the evolution of genes and proteins as observed in the modern organisms. This hypothesis, however, contains several serious weak points. We have a counterproposal called [GADV]-protein world hypothesis, abbreviated as GADV hypothesis, in which we have suggested that life originated from a [GADV]-protein world, which comprised proteins composed of four amino acids: Gly [G], Ala [A], Asp [D], and Val [V]. A new concept “pseudo-replication” is crucial for the description of the emergence of life. The new hypothesis not only plausibly explains how life originated from the initial chaotic protein world, but also how genes, genetic code, and proteins co-evolved.

The origin, evolution and structure of the protein world

Contemporary protein architectures can be regarded as molecular fossils, historical imprints that mark important milestones in the history of life. Whereas sequences change at a considerable pace, higher-order structures are constrained by the energetic landscape of protein folding, the exploration of sequence and structure space, and complex interactions mediated by the proteostasis and proteolytic machineries of the cell. The survey of architectures in the living world that was fuelled by recent structural genomic initiatives has been summarized in protein classification schemes, and the overall structure of fold space explored with novel bioinformatic approaches. However, metrics of general structural comparison have not yet unified architectural complexity using the 'shared and derived' tenet of evolutionary analysis. In contrast, a shift of focus from molecules to proteomes and a census of protein structure in fully sequenced genomes were able to uncover global evolutionary patterns in the structure of proteins. Timelines of discovery of architectures and functions unfolded episodes of specialization, reductive evolutionary tendencies of architectural repertoires in proteomes and the rise of modularity in the protein world. They revealed a biologically complex ancestral proteome and the early origin of the archaeal lineage. Studies also identified an origin of the protein world in enzymes of nucleotide metabolism harbouring the P-loop-containing triphosphate hydrolase fold and the explosive discovery of metabolic functions that recapitulated well-defined prebiotic shells and involved the recruitment of structures and functions. These observations have important implications for origins of modern biochemistry and diversification of life.