The common ancestry of life

BackgroundIt is common belief that all cellular life forms on earth have a common origin. This view is supported by the universality of the genetic code and the universal conservation of multiple genes, particularly those that encode key components of the translation system. A remarkable recent study claims to provide a formal, homology independent test of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis by comparing the ability of a common-ancestry model and a multiple-ancestry model to predict sequences of universally conserved proteins.ResultsWe devised a computational experiment on a concatenated alignment of universally conserved proteins which shows that the purported demonstration of the universal common ancestry is a trivial consequence of significant sequence similarity between the analyzed proteins. The nature and origin of this similarity are irrelevant for the prediction of "common ancestry" of by the model-comparison approach. Thus, homology (common origin) of the compared proteins remains an inference from sequence similarity rather than an independent property demonstrated by the likelihood analysis.ConclusionA formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.Reviewersthis article was reviewed by William Martin, Ivan Iossifov (nominated by Andrey Rzhetsky) and Arcady Mushegian. For the complete reviews, see the Reviewers' Report section.

[1]  Douglas L. Theobald,et al.  A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry , 2010, Nature.

[2]  Allan C. Wilson,et al.  Adaptive evolution in the stomach lysozymes of foregut fermenters , 1987, Nature.

[3]  Eugene V. Koonin,et al.  Comparative genomics, minimal gene-sets and the last universal common ancestor , 2003, Nature Reviews Microbiology.

[4]  R F Doolittle,et al.  Convergent evolution: the need to be explicit. , 1994, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[5]  O. Gascuel,et al.  A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. , 2003, Systematic biology.

[6]  Eugene V. Koonin,et al.  Constraints and plasticity in genome and molecular-phenome evolution , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[7]  Michael J. Stanhope,et al.  Universal trees based on large combined protein sequence data sets , 2001, Nature Genetics.

[8]  W. Martin,et al.  Phylogeny of 33 ribosomal and six other proteins encoded in an ancient gene cluster that is conserved across prokaryotic genomes: influence of excluding poorly alignable sites from analysis. , 2000, International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology.

[9]  Michael Y. Galperin,et al.  Non-homologous isofunctional enzymes: A systematic analysis of alternative solutions in enzyme evolution , 2010, Biology Direct.

[10]  Maryse Condé Tree of Life , 1992 .

[11]  Michael Y. Galperin,et al.  Analogous enzymes: independent inventions in enzyme evolution. , 1998, Genome research.

[12]  N. Pierce Origin of Species , 1914, Nature.

[13]  M. Nei,et al.  Small-sample tests of episodic adaptive evolution: a case study of primate lysozymes. , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.

[14]  Mike Steel,et al.  Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test , 2010, Nature.

[15]  Bernard Labedan,et al.  The Last Universal Common Ancestor: emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner , 2008, Biology Direct.

[16]  Nigel F. Delaney,et al.  Darwinian Evolution Can Follow Only Very Few Mutational Paths to Fitter Proteins , 2006, Science.

[17]  Elliott Sober,et al.  Testing the hypothesis of common ancestry. , 2002, Journal of theoretical biology.

[18]  B. Snel,et al.  Toward Automatic Reconstruction of a Highly Resolved Tree of Life , 2006, Science.