Undefining life's biochemistry: implications for abiogenesis

[Frank Robert]

A slew of mid-twentieth-century Nobel Prizes were awarded for discovering a seemingly unifying molecular basis for all life on our planet.​

Abstract​

In the mid-twentieth century, multiple Nobel Prizes rewarded discoveries of a seemingly universal set of molecules and interactions that collectively defined the chemical basis for life. Twenty-first-century science knows that every detail of this Central Dogma of Molecular Biology can vary through either biological evolution, human engineering (synthetic biology) or both. Clearly the material, molecular basis of replicating, evolving entities can be different. There is far less clarity yet for what constitutes this set of possibilities. One approach to better understand the limits and scope of moving beyond life's central dogma comes from those who study life's origins. RNA, proteins and the genetic code that binds them each look like products of natural selection. This raises the question of what step(s) preceded these particular components? Answers here will clarify whether any discrete point in time or biochemical evolution will objectively merit the label of life's origin, or whether life unfolds seamlessly from the non-living universe.

Last year, three publications described how the genetic material of more than 200 bacteriophage viruses uses 1-aminoadenine (Z) instead of adenine (A) [1–4]. This minor difference in chemical structures is nevertheless a fundamental deviation from the standard alphabet of four nucleobases established by biological evolution at the time of life's Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA). Placed into broader context, the finding illustrates a deep shift taking place in our understanding of the chemical basis for biology.

Read More | Journal Of The Royal Society