Ambidextrous RNA

Default taxonomy: Ernst Mayr's view of the microbial world

This perspective is a response to a taxonomic proposal by E. Mayr ["Two empires or three?" (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 9720-9723]. Mayr has suggested that the now accepted classification of life into three primary domains, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya-originally proposed by myself and others--be abandoned in favor of the earlier Prokaryote-Eukaryote classification. Although the matter appears a taxonomic quibble, it is not that simple. At issue here are differing views as to the nature of biological classification, which are underlain by differing views as to what biology is and will be--matters of concern to all biologists.

Archaea and the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition

Since the late 1970s, determining the phylogenetic relationships among the contemporary domains of life, the Archaea (archaebacteria), Bacteria (eubacteria), and Eucarya (eukaryotes), has been central to the study of early cellular evolution. The two salient issues surrounding the universal tree of life are whether all three domains are monophyletic (i.e., all equivalent in taxanomic rank) and where the root of the universal tree lies. Evaluation of the status of the Archaea has become key to answering these questions. This review considers our cumulative knowledge about the Archaea in relationship to the Bacteria and Eucarya. Particular attention is paid to the recent use of molecular phylogenetic approaches to reconstructing the tree of life. In this regard, the phylogenetic analyses of more than 60 proteins are reviewed and presented in the context of their participation in major biochemical pathways. Although many gene trees are incongruent, the majority do suggest a sisterhood between Archaea and Eucarya. Altering this general pattern of gene evolution are two kinds of potential interdomain gene transferrals. One horizontal gene exchange might have involved the gram-positive Bacteria and the Archaea, while the other might have occurred between proteobacteria and eukaryotes and might have been mediated by endosymbiosis.

Tempo, mode, the progenote, and the universal root

Early cellular evolution differed in both mode and tempo from the contemporary process. If modern lineages first began to diverge when the phenotype-genotype coupling was still poorly articulated, then we might be able to learn something about the evolution of that coupling through comparing the molecular biologies of living organisms. The issue is whether the last common ancestor of all life, the cenancestor, was a primitive entity, a progenote, with a more rudimentary genetic information-transfer system. Thinking on this issue is still unsettled. Much depends on the placement of the root of the universal tree and on whether or not lateral transfer renders such rooting meaningless.

On the nature of global classification

Molecular sequencing technology has brought biology into the era of global (universal) classification. Methodologically and philosophically, global classification differs significantly from traditional, local classification. The need for uniformity requires that higher level taxa be defined on the molecular level in terms of universally homologous functions. A global classification should reflect both principal dimensions of the evolutionary process: genealogical relationship and quality and extent of divergence within a group. The ultimate purpose of a global classification is not simply information storage and retrieval; such a system should also function as an heuristic representation of the evolutionary paradigm that exerts a directing influence on the course of biology. The global system envisioned allows paraphyletic taxa. To retain maximal phylogenetic information in these cases, minor notational amendments in existing taxonomic conventions should be adopted.