Skip to main content
Log in

The Origin(s) of Cell(s): Pre-Darwinian Evolution from FUCAs to LUCA

To Carl Woese (1928-2012), for his Conceptual Breakthrough of Cellular Evolution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Molecular Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The coming of the Last Universal Cellular Ancestor (LUCA) was the singular watershed event in the making of the biotic world. If the coming of LUCA marked the crossing of the “Darwinian Threshold”, then pre-LUCA evolution must have been Pre-Darwinian and at least partly non-Darwinian. But how did Pre-Darwinian evolution before LUCA actually operate? I broaden our understanding of the central mechanism of biological evolution (i.e., variation-selection-inheritance) and then extend this broadened understanding to its natural starting point: the origin(s) of the First Universal Cellular Ancestors (FUCAs) before LUCA. My hypothesis centers upon vesicles’ making-and-remaking as variation and competition as selection. More specifically, I argue that vesicles’ acquisition and merger, via breaking-and-repacking, proto-endocytosis, proto-endosymbiosis, and other similar processes had been a central force of both variation and selection in the pre-Darwinian epoch. These new perspectives shed important new light upon the origin of FUCAs and their subsequent evolution into LUCA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. E.g., Oparin 1953 [1938]; Fox 1973; Woese and Fox 1977; Gánti 1997; Szathmáry and Maynard Smith 1997; Norris and Raine 1998; Woese 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004; Cavalier-Smith 2001; Szostak et al. 2001; Luisi 2006, 2016; Chen and Walde 2010; Fry 2011; Pross 2011; Egel 2012, 2017; Bouchard 2014; Doolittle 2014; Koonin 2014a, b; O’Malley 2014; Baum 2015; Damer and Deamer 2015, 2020; Spitzer et al. 2015; Smith and Morowitz 2016; Pascal and Pross 2016; Cornish-Bowden and Cárdenas 2017; Garson 2017; Lanier and Williams 2017; Spitzer 2017; Toman and Flegr 2017; Doolittle and Inkpen 2018; Deamer 2019; Deamer et al. 2019; Lopez and Fiore 2019; Kunnev 2020. I apologize for not citing all the relevant literature: it is simply too voluminous. For overviews of our journey since Oparin, see Miller et al. 1997; Lazcano 2010; Deamer 2019.

  2. The notation of FUCA is similar to the First Eukaryotic Common Ancestors (FECAs) before the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA). Just as FECAs were most likely a pool of organisms (Eme et al. 2017), FUCAs were also most likely a pool of (proto-)organisms. See Section I below.

  3. I also skip some rather minor quibbles (e.g., whether LUCA had introns).

  4. Hence, my position critically differs from Prosdocimi et al. (2019), who also used the abbreviation FUCA for “the First Universal Common Ancestor”. Prosdocimi et al. insists that FUCA is not a cell but a RNA-dependent peptide-synthesis machinery or peptidyl transferase center. Also, they merely hypothesized that FUCA existed but provided no hypothesis for its origin.

  5. Indeed, Vetsigian et al. (2006, p. 10,697) came extremely close to such a position: “The central conjecture in our model is that innovation-sharing, which involves horizontal transfer of genes and perhaps other complex elements among the evolving entities [a dynamic far more rampant and pervasive than our current perception of horizontal gene transfer (HGT)], is required to bring the evolving translation apparatus, its code, and by implication the cell itself to their current condition.” (Italics added.) Moreover, starting with a quite different perspective, Woese and Fox (1977, p. 5) had actually argued that “endosymbiosis should probably be considered an aboriginal (…) [and not-so-rare] trait” rather than “an acquired trait” or “a relatively recent and rare occurrence”. For this author, it is a mystery why Woese’s penetrating mind had not joined these two themes together.

  6. For example, the thesis offered here is less miraculous than existing competing theses out there (e.g., multiple escapes and multiple invasions; Cavalier-Smith 2001; Forterre 2006; Lane et al. 2010).

  7. Alternatively, if there had been more than two sub-populations initially, eventually only two had survived.

  8. This possibility best explains the great diversity of this group of virus, and why ( +)ssRNA viruses remain the largest group of viruses (de Farias et al. 2017).

  9. Unfortunately, because viruses and other replicons tend to evolve rather rapidly, their evolution may inform us little about the evolution of FUCAs and LUCA (Moreira et al. 2009; cf. Koonin and Dolja 2013).

  10. By biological-functional, we mean that the same biological function can be performed by different molecules, with or without significant structural or sequence similarities. For example, an alpha-helix can be formed by different stretches of peptide.

  11. The evolution of the standard (or universal) genetic code is a research area all by itself. Here, suffice to say that our thesis is compatible with the emerging consensus that three mechanisms must have jointly played key role in the evolution of the code and they reinforce each other (see Koonin and Novozhilov 2017 for review). The three key mechanisms are: stereochemistry, coevolution of the code and then translation plus proteins, and error minimization. Note, however, all three mechanisms implicitly center on the evolution of the code within a single cell population and this possibility is highly unlikely (see below). Hence, HBMT as a mechanism that can draw from “global innovation” [and subsumes HGT (e.g., Vetsigian et al. 2006)] may be absolutely necessary.

  12. The fact that replicons with protein capsids (i.e., viruses) are more widespread than replicons without protein capsids (i.e., viroids) also suggest that the former is more advantageous than the latter. Also, viroids have so far only been found in higher plants whereas viruses have been found in all three domains. This fact suggests that viroids most likely have a recent origin.

  13. This possibility therefore supports the “TAGTF” thesis while going against the “hydrothermal alkaline vents (HTAV)” thesis. See below.

  14. In this sense, eukaryogenesis was a unique event only because it produced a eukaryotic cell but not because endosymbiosis had only operated this once (Woese and Fox 1977; Booth and Doolittle 2015; cf. Sagan 1967; Margulis 1981; Lane and Martin 2015).

  15. Megaviruses, as double-stranded DNA viruses, must have originated after the origin of DNA replication. Hence, megaviruses do not support the thesis that early replicons or protocells had possessed big genomes.

  16. So far, no Hsp12 homologs have been discovered beyond fungi, but this may be due to the fact that membrane proteins are less conserved than water-solvable proteins (Sojo et al. 2016). More speculatively, polyglycine, made of Glycine, might have played a similar role in stabilizing protocell membranes (Kim et al. 2019).

  17. To resolve this classic chicken-and-egg difficulty, Koonin wisely switched from the thesis of maritime origin within inorganic chambers (Koonin and Martin 2005; Koonin 2009) to a thesis of terrestrial origin (Mulkidjanian et al. 2009, 2012; see also Koonin 2014a, b). Yet, Koonin (2014b) has retained the possibility of multiple escape from the communal ancestors (see also Koonin and Dolja 2013). See below.

  18. Hence, by 1998, Woese had changed from his original conception of progenotes that did not differentiate progenotes and genotes to a more valid conception that does differentiate the two.

  19. Indeed, multiple escapes and multiple invasions are like two sides of the same miracle.

  20. Our testing of this possibility with computer simulation will be reported separately.

  21. Indeed, UBLs play critical roles in pre-mRNA splicing in eukaryotes (Chanarat and Mishra 2018).

Abbreviations

HBMT:

Horizontal biomolecules transfer

HGT:

Horizontal gene transfer

HTAV:

Hydrothermal alkaline vent

TAGTF:

Terrestrial anoxic geothermal fields

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

For insightful comments and suggestions, I thank Bruce Damer, David Deamer, Aaron Goldman, Eugene Koonin, four anonymous reviewers, and the editor. Jin He and Tian Yue have provided outstanding research assistance. Special thanks go to Chang-an Liu for drawing the two figures.

Funding

The search has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ST developed the theory and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiping Tang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Additional information

Handling editor: Aaron Goldman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tang, S. The Origin(s) of Cell(s): Pre-Darwinian Evolution from FUCAs to LUCA. J Mol Evol 89, 427–447 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-021-10014-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00239-021-10014-4

Keywords

Navigation