Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Nature Microbiology
  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Is LUCA a thermophilic progenote?

Nature Microbiologyvolume 1, Article number: 16229 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — We wish to comment on several claims made in the paper by Weisset al.1, which describes a genomic analysis that they believe is consistent with the origin of life and emergence of a progenote-like last universal common ancestor (LUCA) in hydrothermal vent conditions. The hydrothermal vent concept was proposed by researchers in the 1980s as an ocean would have been the dominant aqueous medium on the early Earth. Most would also agree that life could not begin in the open ocean because there is no obvious source of free energy to drive energetically uphill processes, so when the vent idea was first proposed it was welcomed2. The vents provide an obvious source of free energy in the form of redox potentials and pH gradients, and their sponge-like mineral structures could potentially serve as compartments. Furthermore, microbial life has adapted to vent conditions, so maybe it began there. Proponents adopted the idea and published numerous papers on the subject in the form of essays (for example, refs3,4).

The article begins by reinforcing the frequent misconception that the terms ‘LUCA’ and ‘progenote’ share the same definition. They do not. Carl Woese and George Fox put forward the hypothesis that LUCA (also known as the cenancestor or most recent common ancestor of all life) was a progenote, which they defined as an organism “still in the process of evolving the relationship between genotype and phenotype”5. Fourteen years ago, one of us wrote an entry for theEncyclopedia of Molecular Biology6 discussing the relationship between the progenote and LUCA concepts. The conclusion reached at that time is still valid today: sequence data, including the data presented by Weisset al., support the idea that LUCA was a prokaryotic cell using nucleic acids as genetic material, 20 genetically encoded amino acids, ribosomes for template-directed protein synthesis, and membranes that allowed for chemiosmotic coupling7,8. To consider a cellular organism with these properties as only “half-alive”1 reflects an uncommon definition of life.

This is a preview of subscription content,access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

￥14,900 per year

only ￥1,242 per issue

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Weiss, M. C.et al.Nat. Microbiol.1, 16116 (2016).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Corliss, J. B., Baross, J. & Hoffman, S.Oceanol. ActaNo. SP, 59–69 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Martin, W. & Russell, M. J.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.358, 59–85 (2003).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Martin, W. F., Sousa, F. L. & Lane, N.Science344, 1092–1093 (2014).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Woese, C. R. & Fox, G. E.J. Mol. Evol.10, 1–6 (1977).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gogarten, J. P. & Olendzenski, L. inEncyclopedia of Molecular Biology 1962–1964 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gogarten, J. P. & Taiz, L.Photosynth. Res.33, 137–146 (1992).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldman, A. D., Bernhard, T. M., Dolzhenko, E. & Landweber, L. F.Nucleic Acids Res.41, D1079–D1082 (2013).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Beiko, R. G., Harlow, T. J. & Ragan, M. A.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA102, 14332–14337 (2005).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Andam, C. P. & Gogarten, J. P.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.9, 543–555 (2011).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hilario, E. & Gogarten, J. P.Biosystems31, 111–119 (1993).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wolf, Y. I., Aravind, L., Grishin, N. V. & Koonin, E. V.Genome Res.9, 689–710 (1999).

    CAS PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boussau, B., Blanquart, S., Necsulea, A., Lartillot, N. & Gouy, M.Nature456, 942–945 (2008).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kelley, D. S.et al.Science307, 1428–1434 (2005).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jackson, J. B.J. Mol. Evol.83, 1–11 (2016).

    Article CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Connecticut, Storrs, 06269-3125, Connecticut, USA

    Johann Peter Gogarten

  2. University of California, Santa Cruz, 95064, California, USA

    David Deamer

Authors
  1. Johann Peter Gogarten

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Deamer

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toDavid Deamer.

Rights and permissions

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Associated content

The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor

  • Madeline C. Weiss
  • Filipa L. Sousa
  • William F. Martin
Nature MicrobiologyArticle

Reply to ‘Is LUCA a thermophilic progenote?’

  • Madeline C. Weiss
  • Sinje Neukirchen
  • Filipa L. Sousa
Nature MicrobiologyCorrespondence

Advertisement

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for theNature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox.Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp