Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 33:31 | Cite as

Universal common ancestry, LUCA, and the Tree of Life: three distinct hypotheses about the evolution of life

  • Joel Velasco
Article
  • 303 Downloads

Abstract

Common ancestry is a central feature of the theory of evolution, yet it is not clear what “common ancestry” actually means; nor is it clear how it is related to other terms such as “the Tree of Life” and “the last universal common ancestor”. I argue these terms describe three distinct hypotheses ordered in a logical way: that there is a Tree of Life is a claim about the pattern of evolutionary history, that there is a last universal common ancestor is an ontological claim about the existence of an entity of a specific kind, and that there is universal common ancestry is a claim about a causal pattern in the history of life. With these generalizations in mind, I argue that the existence of a Tree of Life entails a last universal common ancestor, which would entail universal common ancestry, but neither of the converse entailments hold. This allows us to make sense of the debates surrounding the Tree, as well as our lack of knowledge about the last universal common ancestor, while still maintaining the uncontroversial truth of universal common ancestry.

Keywords

Tree of Life Last universal common ancestor LUCA Common ancestry 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Ford Doolittle, Maureen O’Malley, Jeremy Schwartz, Elliott Sober, Quayshawn Spencer, several anonymous referees, and audiences at the University of Pennsylvania and the 2016 Philosophy of Science Association meeting for helpful comments and discussion.

References

  1. Alexander DE (2015) On the wing: insects, pterosaurs, birds, bats and the evolution of animal flight. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Andam CP, Gogarten JP (2011) Biased gene transfer in microbial evolution. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:543–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnoldt H, Strogatz SH, Timme M (2015) Toward the darwinian transition: switching between distributed and speciated states in a simple model of early life. Phys Rev E 92:052909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldauf SL, Palmer JD, Doolittle WF (1996) The root of the universal tree and the origin of eukaryotes based on elongation factor phylogeny. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93(15):7749–7754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becerra A, Delaye L, Islas S, Lazcano A (2007) The very early stages of biological evolution and the nature of the last common ancestor of the three major cell domains. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38(1):361–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buller AR, Townsend CA (2013) Intrinsic evolutionary constraints on protease structure, enzyme acylation, and the identity of the catalytic triad. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(8):E653–E661.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1221050110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ciccarelli FD, Doerks T, von Mering C, Creevey C, Snel B, Bork P (2006) Towards automatic reconstruction of a highly resolved Tree of Life. Science 311:1283–1287.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1123061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke E (2010) The problem of biological individuality. Biol Theor 5(4):312–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doolittle WF (1999) Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 284(5423):2124–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doolittle WF (2005) If the Tree of Life fell, would we recognize the sound? In: Sapp J (ed) Microbial phylogeny and evolution: concepts and controversies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 119–133Google Scholar
  11. Doolittle WF (2009) The practice of classification and the theory of evolution, and what the demise of Charles Darwin’s Tree of Life hypothesis means for both of them. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 364(1527):2221–2228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doolittle WF (2012) Population genomics: how bacterial species form and why they don’t exist. Curr Biol 22(11):R451–R453.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.04.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doolittle WF, Bapteste E (2007) Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis. Proc Acad Natl Sci USA 104:2043–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doolittle WF, Booth A (2017) It’s the song, not the singer: an exploration of holobiosis and evolutionary theory. Biol Philos 32:5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doolittle WF, Brunet TDP (2016) What is the Tree of Life? PLoS Genet 12(4):e1005912.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doolittle WF, Boucher Y, Nesb\o CL, Douady CJ, Andersson JO, Roger AJ (2003) How big is the iceberg of which organellar genes in nuclear genomes are but the tip? Philos Trans B 358(1429):39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ereshefsky M (2010) Microbiology and the species problem. Biol Philos 25:67–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forterre P, Filée, J, Myllykallio H (2004) Origin and evolution of DNA and DNA replication machineries. In: Ribas de Pouplana L (ed) The genetic code and the origin of life. Landes Bioscience, Austin, pp 145–168Google Scholar
  19. Forterre P (2010) Defining life: the virus viewpoint. Orig Life Evol Biosph 40(2):151–160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11084-010-9194-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forterre P (2016) To be or not to be alive: how recent discoveries challenge the traditional definitions of viruses and life. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 59:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galtier N, Daubin V (2008) Dealing with incongruence in phylogenetic analyses. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:4023–4029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gogarten JP, Olendzenski L (1999) The progenote. In: Creighton T (ed) Encyclopedia of molecular biology. Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  23. Gogarten JP, Kibak H, Dittrich P, Taiz L, Bowman EJ, Bowman BJ, Manolson MF et al (1989) Evolution of the vacuolar H+-ATPase: implications for the origin of eukaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86(17):6661–6665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hug LA, Baker BJ, Anantharaman K, Brown CT, Probst AJ, Castelle CJ, Butterfield CN, Hernsdorf AW, Amano Y, Ise K, Suzuki Y, Dudek N, Relman DA, Finstad KM, Amundson R, Thomas BC, Banfield JF (2016) A new view of the Tree of Life. Nat Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.48
  25. Iwabe N, Kuma K, Hasegawa M, Osawa S, Miyata T (1989) Evolutionary relationship of archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes inferred from phylogenetic trees of duplicated genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86(23):9355–9359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koonin EV (2003) Comparative genomics, minimal gene-sets and the last universal common ancestor. Nat Rev Microbiol 1(2):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Land MF, Nilsson D-E (2002) Animal eyes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Maddison W (1997) Gene trees in species trees. Syst Biol 46(3):523–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mindell DP (2013) The Tree of Life: metaphor, model, and heuristic device. Syst Biol 62(3):479–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nasir A, Kim KM, Caetano-Anollés G (2017) Phylogenetic tracings of proteome size support the gradual accretion of protein structural domains and the early origin of viruses from primordial cells. Front Microbiol 8:1178.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ouzounis CA, Kunin V, Darzentas N, Goldovsky L (2006) A minimal estimate for the gene content of the last universal common ancestor—exobiology from a terrestrial perspective. Res Microbiol 157:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Penny D, Poole A (1999) The nature of the last universal common ancestor. Curr Opin Genet Dev 9(6):672–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Penny D, Foulds LR, Hendy MD (1982) Testing the theory of evolution by comparing phylogenetic trees constructed from five different protein sequences. Nature 297(5863):197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Philippe H, Forterre P (1999) The rooting of the universal Tree of Life is not reliable. J Mol Evol 49:509–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Puigbò P, Wolf YI, Koonin EV (2009) Search for a Tree of Life in the thicket of the phylogenetic forest. J. Biol 8:59.  https://doi.org/10.1186/jbiol159 PMID: 19594957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Puigbò P, Wolf YI, Koonin EV (2013) Seeing the Tree of Life behind the phylogenetic forest. BMC Biol 11:46.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-11-46 PMID: 23587361 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sage RF (2004) The evolution of C4 photosynthesis. New Phytol 161:341–370.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.00974.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sober E (2008) Evidence and evolution: the logic behind the science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sober E, Steel M (2002) Testing the hypothesis of common ancestry. J Theor Biol 218(4):395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spang A, Saw JH, Jorgensen SL, Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Martijn J, Lind AE, van Eijk R, Schleper C, Guy L, Ettema TJ (2015) Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nature 521:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Syvanen M (2002) On the occurrence of horizontal gene transfer among an arbitrarily chosen group of 26 genes. J Mol Evol 54:258–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s0023901-0007-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Syvanen M (2005) The last universal common ancestor. The panda’s thumb. https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/the-last-univer.html. Accessed 30 August 2005
  43. Theobald DL (2010) A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature 465:219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Velasco JD (2012) The future of systematics: tree thinking without the tree. Philos Sci 79:624–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Velasco JD (2013) The Tree of Life. In: Ruse M (ed) The Cambridge encyclopedia of darwin and evolutionary thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 340–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vetsigian K, Woese C, Goldenfeld N (2006) Collective evolution and the genetic code. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(28):10696–10701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weiss MC, Sousa FL, Mrnjavac N, Neukirchen S, Roettger M, Nelson-Sathi S, Martin WF (2016) The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor. Nat Microbiol, vol 1.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.116
  48. Wells J (2006) The politically incorrect guide to darwinism and intelligent design. Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams TA, Foster PG, Cox CJ, Embley TM (2013) An archaeal origin of eukaryotes supports only two primary domains of life. Nature 504:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Woese CR (1983) The primary lines of descent and the universal ancestor. In: Bendall DS (ed) Evolution from molecules to men. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 209–233Google Scholar
  51. Woese CR (1987) Bacterial evolution. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 51(2):221–271Google Scholar
  52. Woese C (1998) The universal ancestor. Proc Acad Natl Sci USA 95(12):6854–6859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Woese CR, Fox GE (1977) The concept of cellular evolution. J Mol Evol 10(1):1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01796132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Woese CR, Kandler O, Wheelis ML (1990) Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Acad Natl Sci USA 87(12):4576–4579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K, Careres EF, Saw JH, Backstrom D, Juzokaite L, Vancaester E, Seitz KW, Anantharaman K, Starnawski P, Kjeldsen KU, Stott MB, Nunoura T, Banfield JF, Schramm A, Baker BJ, Spang A, Ettema TJ (2017) Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature 541:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zhaxybayeva O, Gogarten P (2004) Cladogenesis, coalescence and the evolution of the three domains of life. Trends Genet 20(4):182–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations