A polyphyletic model for the origin of tRNAs has more support than a monophyletic model

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 Evolution of tRNA Copy Number and Repertoire in Cellular Life

tRNAs are universal decoders that bridge the gap between transcriptome and proteome. They can also be processed into small RNA fragments with regulatory functions. In this work, we show that tRNA copy number is largely controlled by genome size in all cellular organisms, in contrast to what is observed for protein-coding genes that stop expanding between ~20,000 and ~35,000 loci per haploid genome in eukaryotes, regardless of genome size. Our analyses indicate that after the bacteria/archaea split, the tRNA gene pool experienced the evolution of increased anticodon diversity in the archaeal lineage, along with a tRNA gene size increase and mature tRNA size decrease. The evolution and diversification of eukaryotes from archaeal ancestors involved further expansion of the tRNA anticodon repertoire, additional increase in tRNA gene size and decrease in mature tRNA length, along with an explosion of the tRNA gene copy number that emerged coupled with accelerated genome size expansion. Our findings support the notion that macroscopic eukaryotes with a high diversity of cell types, such as land plants and vertebrates, independently evolved a high diversity of tRNA anticodons along with high gene redundancy caused by the expansion of the tRNA copy number. The results presented here suggest that the evolution of tRNA genes played important roles in the early split between bacteria and archaea, and in eukaryogenesis and the later emergence of complex eukaryotes, with potential implications in protein translation and gene regulation through tRNA-derived RNA fragments.

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.

Social Networking of Quasi-Species Consortia drive Virolution via Persistence

The emergence of cooperative quasi-species consortia (QS-C) thinking from the more accepted quasispecies equations of Manfred Eigen, provides a conceptual foundation from which concerted action of RNA agents can now be understood. As group membership becomes a basic criteria for the emergence of living systems, we also start to understand why the history and context of social RNA networks become crucial for survival and function. History and context of social RNA networks also lead to the emergence of a natural genetic code. Indeed, this QS-C thinking can also provide us with a transition point between the chemical world of RNA replicators and the living world of RNA agents that actively differentiate self from non-self and generate group identity with membership roles. Importantly the social force of a consortia to solve complex, multilevel problems also depend on using opposing and minority functions. The consortial action of social networks of RNA stem-loops subsequently lead to the evolution of cellular organisms representing a tree of life.

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 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.

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.

Comparisons between small ribosomal RNA and theoretical minimal RNA ring secondary structures confirm phylogenetic and structural accretion histories

Ribosomal RNAs are complex structures that presumably evolved by tRNA accretions. Statistical properties of tRNA secondary structures correlate with genetic code integration orders of their cognate amino acids. Ribosomal RNA secondary structures resemble those of tRNAs with recent cognates. Hence, rRNAs presumably evolved from ancestral tRNAs. Here, analyses compare secondary structure subcomponents of small ribosomal RNA subunits with secondary structures of theoretical minimal RNA rings, presumed proto-tRNAs. Two independent methods determined different accretion orders of rRNA structural subelements: (a) classical comparative homology and phylogenetic reconstruction, and (b) a structural hypothesis assuming an inverted onion ring growth where the three-dimensional ribosome's core is most ancient and peripheral elements most recent. Comparisons between (a) and (b) accretions orders with RNA ring secondary structure scales show that recent rRNA subelements are: 1. more like RNA rings with recent cognates, indicating ongoing coevolution between tRNA and rRNA secondary structures; 2. less similar to theoretical minimal RNA rings with ancient cognates. Our method fits (a) and (b) in all examined organisms, more with (a) than (b). Results stress the need to integrate independent methods. Theoretical minimal RNA rings are potential evolutionary references for any sequence-based evolutionary analyses, independent of the focal data from that study.

Why Is AUG the Start Codon?: Theoretical Minimal RNA Rings: Maximizing Coded Information Biases 1st Codon for the Universal Initiation Codon AUG

The rational design of theoretical minimal RNA rings predetermines AUG as the universal start codon. This design maximizes coded amino acid diversity over minimal sequence length, defining in silico theoretical minimal RNA rings, candidate ancestral genes. RNA rings code for 21 amino acids and a stop codon after three consecutive translation rounds, and form a degradation-delaying stem-loop hairpin. Twenty-five RNA rings match these constraints, ten start with the universal initiation codon AUG. No first codon bias exists among remaining RNA rings. RNA ring design predetermines AUG as initiation codon. This is the only explanation yet for AUG as start codon. RNA ring design determines additional RNA ring gene- and tRNA-like properties described previously, because it presumably mimics constraints on life's primordial RNAs.

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.

Accretion history of large ribosomal subunits deduced from theoretical minimal RNA rings is congruent with histories derived from phylogenetic and structural methods

Accretions of tRNAs presumably formed the large complex ribosomal RNA structures. Similarities of tRNA secondary structures with rRNA secondary structures increase with the integration order of their cognate amino acid in the genetic code, indicating tRNA evolution towards rRNA-like structures. Here analyses rank secondary structure subelements of three large ribosomal RNAs (Prokaryota: Archaea: Thermus thermophilus; Bacteria: Escherichia coli; Eukaryota: Saccharomyces cerevisiae) in relation to their similarities with secondary structures formed by presumed proto-tRNAs, represented by 25 theoretical minimal RNA rings. These ranks are compared to those derived from two independent methods (ranks provide a relative evolutionary age to the rRNA substructure), (a) cladistic phylogenetic analyses and (b) 3D-crystallography where core subelements are presumed ancient and peripheral ones recent. Comparisons of rRNA secondary structure subelements with RNA ring secondary structures show congruence between ranks deduced by this method and both (a) and (b) (more with (a) than (b)), especially for RNA rings with predicted ancient cognate amino acid. Reconstruction of accretion histories of large rRNAs will gain from adequately integrating information from independent methods. Theoretical minimal RNA rings, sequences deterministically designed in silico according to specific coding constraints, might produce adequate scales for prebiotic and early life molecular evolution.

An RNA Ring was Not the Progenitor of the tRNA Molecule

I analyzed the model that suggests that an RNA ring might have been the progenitor of the tRNA molecule (Demongeot and Moreira in J Theor Biol 249:314-324, 2007; Demongeot and Seligmann in J Mol Evol 1-23, 2019a; Demongeot and Norris in Life 9(2):51, 2019). In particular, I analyze three ways in which this precursor, especially in its RNA hairpin form, could have evolved into the complete tRNA molecule. These three modalities are based on multiple duplication events, and therefore, appear to be less parsimonious than that which assumes that this molecule originated through one duplication of a single hairpin structure. The conclusion is, therefore, that the latter model appears to be preferable with respect to that of the RNA ring, also because there are many independent observations and some of a historical nature that would corroborate it in an extraordinary way.

The Uroboros Theory of Life's Origin: 22-Nucleotide Theoretical Minimal RNA Rings Reflect Evolution of Genetic Code and tRNA-rRNA Translation Machineries

Theoretical minimal RNA rings attempt to mimick life's primitive RNAs. At most 25 22-nucleotide-long RNA rings code once for each biotic amino acid, a start and a stop codon and form a stem-loop hairpin, resembling consensus tRNAs. We calculated, for each RNA ring's 22 potential splicing positions, similarities of predicted secondary structures with tRNA vs. rRNA secondary structures. Assuming rRNAs partly derived from tRNA accretions, we predict positive associations between relative secondary structure similarities with rRNAs over tRNAs and genetic code integration orders of RNA ring anticodon cognate amino acids. Analyses consider for each secondary structure all nucleotide triplets as potential anticodon. Anticodons for ancient, chemically inert cognate amino acids are most frequent in the 25 RNA rings. For RNA rings with primordial cognate amino acids according to tRNA-homology-derived anticodons, tRNA-homology and coding sequences coincide, these are separate for predicted cognate amino acids that presumably integrated late the genetic code. RNA ring secondary structure similarity with rRNA over tRNA secondary structures associates best with genetic code integration orders of anticodon cognate amino acids when assuming split anticodons (one and two nucleotides at the spliced RNA ring 5' and 3' extremities, respectively), and at predicted anticodon location in the spliced RNA ring's midst. Results confirm RNA ring homologies with tRNAs and CDs, ancestral status of tRNA half genes split at anticodons, the tRNA-rRNA axis of RNA evolution, and that single theoretical minimal RNA rings potentially produce near-complete proto-tRNA sets. Hence genetic code pre-existence determines 25 short circular gene- and tRNA-like RNAs. Accounting for each potential splicing position, each RNA ring potentially translates most amino acids, realistically mimicks evolution of the tRNA-rRNA translation machinery. These RNA rings 'of creation' remind the uroboros' (snake biting its tail) symbolism for creative regeneration.

Circular RNA (circRNA) was an important bridge in the switch from the RNA world to the DNA world

The concept that life on Earth began as an RNA world has been built upon extensive experimentation demonstrating that many of the building blocks required for living cells could be synthesized in the laboratory under conditions approximating our primordial world. Many of the building blocks for life have also been found in meteorites indicating that meteors may have been a source for these molecules, or more likely, that they represent the chemical library present in most/all bodies in the universe after the big bang. Perhaps the most important support for the concept comes from the fact that some RNA species possess catalytic activity, ribozymes, and that RNA could be reverse transcribe to DNA. The thrust of numerous papers on this topic has been to explore how the available molecules on Earth, at its birth, gave rise to life as we know it today. This paper focuses more on a reverse view of the topic. The "how" molecular building blocks were synthesized is not addressed nor how the "first" RNA molecules were synthesized. We can clearly speculate on the variable environmental conditions and chemistry available on Earth billions of years ago. However, we can never truly replicate the changing conditions or know the chemical composition of Earth at the beginning of time. We can, however, confirm that over millions, perhaps billions of years the basic building blocks for life accumulated sufficiently to initiate evolution to an RNA world followed by our RNA/DNA world. Here we are attempting to take the information from our current knowledge of biology and by inference and extrapolation work backward to hypothesize biological events in the march forward from RNA to DNA. It is proposed that the primordial replicating RNA cell, the ribocyte, evolved from liposomes encompassing required reactants and products for "life" and that ribonucleopeptide complexes formed membrane pores to support bidirectional ion and molecular transport to maintain biological functions and osmolarity. Circular RNA, circRNA, is proposed as a critical stable RNA molecule that served as the genetic precursor for the switch to DNA and the replication of circRNA by a rolling circle mechanism gave rise to the RNA complexity required for the genetic functions of the cell. The replicating ribocyte would have required protein synthesis as well as RNA replication and a model for non-coded and primordial coded protein synthesis is proposed. Finally, the switch from the RNA to the DNA world would have involved the synthesis of an RNA:DNA hybrid prior to the formation of dsDNA. If the hybrid was a circular molecule that ultimately yielded a circular dsDNA molecule, it could predict that the primordial DNA cell would evolve into a bacterial cell with a single circular chromosome. One would hope that continued speculation of the origin of life will spur new directions of research that may never fully answer the questions of the past but add to our ability to regulate potentially harmful biological events in the present and in the future.

Stem-Loop RNA Hairpins in Giant Viruses: Invading rRNA-Like Repeats and a Template Free RNA

We examine the hypothesis that de novo template-free RNAs still form spontaneously, as they did at the origins of life, invade modern genomes, contribute new genetic material. Previously, analyses of RNA secondary structures suggested that some RNAs resembling ancestral (t)RNAs formed recently de novo, other parasitic sequences cluster with rRNAs. Here positive control analyses of additional RNA secondary structures confirm ancestral and de novo statuses of RNA grouped according to secondary structure. Viroids with branched stems resemble de novo RNAs, rod-shaped viroids resemble rRNA secondary structures, independently of GC contents. 5' UTR leading regions of West Nile and Dengue flavivirid viruses resemble de novo and rRNA structures, respectively. An RNA homologous with Megavirus, Dengue and West Nile genomes, copperhead snake microsatellites and levant cotton repeats, not templated by Mimivirus' genome, persists throughout Mimivirus' infection. Its secondary structure clusters with candidate de novo RNAs. The saltatory phyletic distribution and secondary structure of Mimivirus' peculiar RNA suggest occasional template-free polymerization of this sequence, rather than noncanonical transcriptions (swinger polymerization, posttranscriptional editing).

Evolution of Nucleotide Punctuation Marks: From Structural to Linear Signals

We present an evolutionary hypothesis assuming that signals marking nucleotide synthesis (DNA replication and RNA transcription) evolved from multi- to unidimensional structures, and were carried over from transcription to translation. This evolutionary scenario presumes that signals combining secondary and primary nucleotide structures are evolutionary transitions. Mitochondrial replication initiation fits this scenario. Some observations reported in the literature corroborate that several signals for nucleotide synthesis function in translation, and vice versa. (a) Polymerase-induced frameshift mutations occur preferentially at translational termination signals (nucleotide deletion is interpreted as termination of nucleotide polymerization, paralleling the role of stop codons in translation). (b) Stem-loop hairpin presence/absence modulates codon-amino acid assignments, showing that translational signals sometimes combine primary and secondary nucleotide structures (here codon and stem-loop). (c) Homopolymer nucleotide triplets (AAA, CCC, GGG, TTT) cause transcriptional and ribosomal frameshifts. Here we find in recently described human mitochondrial RNAs that systematically lack mono-, dinucleotides after each trinucleotide (delRNAs) that delRNA triplets include 2x more homopolymers than mitogenome regions not covered by delRNA. Further analyses of delRNAs show that the natural circular code X (a little-known group of 20 translational signals enabling ribosomal frame retrieval consisting of 20 codons {AAC, AAT, ACC, ATC, ATT, CAG, CTC, CTG, GAA, GAC, GAG, GAT, GCC, GGC, GGT, GTA, GTC, GTT, TAC, TTC} universally overrepresented in coding versus other frames of gene sequences), regulates frameshift in transcription and translation. This dual transcription and translation role confirms for X the hypothesis that translational signals were carried over from transcriptional signals.

The RNA World as a Model System to Study the Origin of Life

Understanding how life arose is a fundamental problem of biology. Much progress has been made by adopting a synthetic and mechanistic perspective on originating life. We present a current view of the biochemistry of the origin of life, focusing on issues surrounding the emergence of an RNA World in which RNA dominated informational and functional roles. There is cause for optimism on this difficult problem: the prebiotic chemical inventory may not have been as nightmarishly complex as previously thought; the catalytic repertoire of ribozymes continues to expand, approaching the goal of self-replicating RNA; encapsulation in protocells provides evolutionary and biophysical advantages. Nevertheless, major issues remain unsolved, such as the origin of a genetic code. Attention to this field is particularly timely given the accelerating discovery and characterization of exoplanets.

Mitochondrial swinger replication: DNA replication systematically exchanging nucleotides and short 16S ribosomal DNA swinger inserts

Assuming systematic exchanges between nucleotides (swinger RNAs) resolves genomic 'parenthood' of some orphan mitochondrial transcripts. Twenty-three different systematic nucleotide exchanges (bijective transformations) exist. Similarities between transcription and replication suggest occurrence of swinger DNA. GenBank searches for swinger DNA matching the 23 swinger versions of human and mouse mitogenomes detect only vertebrate mitochondrial swinger DNA for swinger type AT+CG (from five different studies, 149 sequences) matching three human and mouse mitochondrial genes: 12S and 16S ribosomal RNAs, and cytochrome oxidase subunit I. Exchange A<->T+C<->G conserves self-hybridization properties, putatively explaining swinger biases for rDNA, against protein coding genes. Twenty percent of the regular human mitochondrial 16S rDNA consists of short swinger repeats (from 13 exchanges). Swinger repeats could originate from recombinations between regular and swinger DNA: duplicated mitochondrial genes of the parthenogenetic gecko Heteronotia binoei include fewer short A<->T+C<->G swinger repeats than non-duplicated mitochondrial genomes of that species. Presumably, rare recombinations between female and male mitochondrial genes (and in parthenogenetic situations between duplicated genes), favors reverse-mutations of swinger repeat insertions, probably because most inserts affect negatively ribosomal function. Results show that swinger DNA exists, and indicate that swinger polymerization contributes to the genesis of genetic material and polymorphism.

Rethinking quasispecies theory: From fittest type to cooperative consortia

Recent investigations surprisingly indicate that single RNA “stem-loops” operate solely by chemical laws that act without selective forces, and in contrast, self-ligated consortia of RNA stem-loops operate by biological selection. To understand consortial RNA selection, the concept of single quasi-species and its mutant spectra as drivers of RNA variation and evolution is rethought here. Instead, we evaluate the current RNA world scenario in which consortia of cooperating RNA stem-loops (not individuals) are the basic players. We thus redefine quasispecies as RNA quasispecies consortia (qs-c) and argue that it has essential behavioral motifs that are relevant to the inherent variation, evolution and diversity in biology. We propose that qs-c is an especially innovative force. We apply qs-c thinking to RNA stem-loops and evaluate how it yields altered bulges and loops in the stem-loop regions, not as errors, but as a natural capability to generate diversity. This basic competence-not error-opens a variety of combinatorial possibilities which may alter and create new biological interactions, identities and newly emerged self identity (immunity) functions. Thus RNA stem-loops typically operate as cooperative modules, like members of social groups. From such qs-c of stem-loop groups we can trace a variety of RNA secondary structures such as ribozymes, viroids, viruses, mobile genetic elements as abundant infection derived agents that provide the stem-loop societies of small and long non-coding RNAs.

Comparative analysis of barophily-related amino acid content in protein domains of Pyrococcus abyssi and Pyrococcus furiosus

Amino acid substitution patterns between the nonbarophilic Pyrococcus furiosus and its barophilic relative P. abyssi confirm that hydrostatic pressure asymmetry indices reflect the extent to which amino acids are preferred by barophilic archaeal organisms. Substitution patterns in entire protein sequences, shared protein domains defined at fold superfamily level, domains in homologous sequence pairs, and domains of very ancient and very recent origin now provide further clues about the environment that led to the genetic code and diversified life. The pyrococcal proteomes are very similar and share a very early ancestor. Relative amino acid abundance analyses showed that biases in the use of amino acids are due to their shared fold superfamilies. Within these repertoires, only two of the five amino acids that are preferentially barophilic, aspartic acid and arginine, displayed this preference significantly and consistently across structure and in domains appearing in the ancestor. The more primordial asparagine, lysine and threonine displayed a consistent preference for nonbarophily across structure and in the ancestor. Since barophilic preferences are already evident in ancient domains that are at least ~3 billion year old, we conclude that barophily is a very ancient trait that unfolded concurrently with genetic idiosyncrasies in convergence towards a universal code.

Putative anticodons in mitochondrial tRNA sidearm loops: Pocketknife tRNAs?

The hypothesis that tRNA sidearm loops bear anticodons assumes crossovers between anticodon and sidearms, or translation by expressed aminoacylated tRNA halves forming single stem-loops. Only the latter might require ribosomal adaptations. Drosophila mitochondrial codon usages coevolve with sidearm numbers bearing matching putative anticodons (comparing different codon families in one genome, macroevolution) and when comparing different genomes for single codon families (microevolution). Coevolution between Drosophila and yeast mitochondrial antisense tRNAs and codon usages partly confounds microevolutionary patterns for putative sidearm anticodons. Some tRNA sidearm loops have more than seven nucleotides, putative expanded anticodons potentially matching quadruplet codons (tetracodons, codons expanded by a fourth silent position, forming tetragenes (predicted by alignment analyses of Drosophila mitochondrial genomes)). Tetracodon numbers coevolve with expanded tRNA sidearm loops. Sidearm coevolution with amino acid usages and tetragenes occurs for putative anticodons in 5' and 3' sidearms loops (D and TΨC loops, respectively), are stronger for the D-loop. Results slightly favour isolated stem-loops upon crossover hypotheses. An alternative hypothesis, that patterns observed for sidearm 'anticodons' do not imply translational activity, but recognition signals for tRNA synthetases that aminoacylate tRNAs, is incompatible with tetracodon/tetra-anticodon coevolution. Hence analyses strengthen translational hypotheses for tRNA sidearm anticodons, tetragenes, and antisense tRNAs.