🧬 Bacteria and archaea may have completed their life chemistry independently

Before bacteria and archaea became two major branches of life, their common ancestor already possessed part of the chemistry necessary for life. But it was still missing many enzymes. According to a new study, each of the two lineages would then have completed this system independently.

This system is metabolism: a network of reactions that enables cells to build their constituents and transform energy. Enzymes are the proteins that now accelerate and control most of these reactions. Archaea, for their part, are microbes distinct from bacteria, even though the two groups can look similar.

Pixabay illustration

Pixabay illustration

To go back so far into the past, there are obviously no protein fossils. The authors therefore compared the enzymes found in 552 bacterial genomes and 401 archaeal genomes. They linked these proteins to 361 reactions needed to produce amino acids, DNA bases and various chemical helpers in cells.

This comparison makes it possible to search for enzymes inherited from a very ancient ancestor. The researchers attribute 166 of them to LUCA, the name given to the last common ancestor of bacteria and archaea. By contrast, 89 others would have appeared later on the branch leading to bacteria, and 38 on the branch leading to archaea. For 37 enzymes, the data remain too scattered to reach a conclusion.

One point significantly changes how this result should be interpreted: the absence of an enzyme in LUCA does not necessarily mean that the corresponding reaction was impossible. It could have been carried out in another way, before the modern protein appeared.

The authors propose that metals present in the environment performed part of this work. Iron, nickel or cobalt can accelerate chemical reactions without an enzyme. Several previous experiments have already reproduced, using such metals and under hydrothermal conditions, reactions corresponding to more than half of today’s central metabolism.

This scenario points to hydrothermal vents, where water circulates through hot rocks and triggers numerous chemical reactions. Some of these reactions produce hydrogen and expose metals capable of transforming small molecules. The chemistry of the environment could thus have supplied part of what cells now handle themselves.

The study also provides a test involving phosphite, a phosphorus compound found in some hydrothermal environments. In the presence of metals, it can participate in adding a phosphate group to AMP to form ADP. This molecule belongs to the ATP-ADP system used by cells today for their energy exchanges. The authors also link 17 modern chemical helpers to functions that metals can replace in laboratory experiments.

The proposed scenario therefore does not imply two independent origins of life. Bacteria and archaea would have inherited the same already well-developed chemical network, then replaced some mineral helpers with different enzymes. It remains to be determined how far these enzyme-free reactions can work together in the same environment and sustainably power a network comparable to that of the first cells.

TI
TitouB

So, before enzymes, did metals really do the exact same job in water? 🤯

GI
GigiZ

What I find interesting here is that metals would have mostly helped certain reactions, rather than replacing all the work of modern enzymes. That still leaves quite a bit of ground between this chemistry and a real cell.

MO
Moka17

TitouB, not exactly: metals could help certain chemical reactions, but not do all the work of a current enzyme. It is precisely this transition from environmental chemistry to the first cells that remains difficult to reconstruct.

KR
Kroco_8

We still manage to derive a lot of things from proteins that haven't existed for billions of years. Between "possible" and "it actually happened like that," I imagine there's a pretty wide margin.

GI
GigiZ

Kroco_8, yes, the margin remains huge. What I like here is that we can at least test certain steps in the lab instead of staying solely in the theoretical scenario.

BA
bambou7

So basically life started with rocks doing part of the work? That still sounds pretty weird 😅