Turning Biochemistry on its Head in Search of the Origin of Life

Early earth was anoxic. That means that metabolic reactions ran backwards, compared to what we regard as normal.

Following up on last week's post on the origins of eukaryotes, I ran across a brilliant body of work by William Martin and colleagues, which explores both that and the related topic of the origin of life, all of which took place on an early earth very different from our own. Perhaps the most fundamental theme in any biochemistry course, especially when it comes to metabolism, is controlled oxidation. We in our bodies recapitulate the action of fire, by transforming (reduced) hydrogen-rich carbon compounds (carbo-hydrates, fats, etc.) to the most oxidized form of carbon, CO2, which we regard as a waste product and make- from our food, and now by proxy out of our ramified economic metabolism- in prodigious amounts. Our rich metabolic inheritance essentially slows down and harnesses this energy-liberating process that, uncontrolled, runs wild.

But early earth was anoxic. There was no free oxygen, and this metabolism simply could not exist. The great oxygenation event of roughly 2 to 3 billion years ago came about due to evolution of photosynthesis, which regards CO2 as its input, and O2 as its waste product. Yet plants metabolize the other way around as well, (often at night), respiring the reduced carbon that they painstakingly accumulate from CO2 fixation back to CO2 for their growth and maintenance. Plants are firmly part of this oxidized world, even as they, in net terms, fix carbon from CO2 and release oxygen.

An energy rich, but reducing, environment, full of sulfides and other hydrogen-rich compounds.

In a truly anoxic world, the natural biochemical destination is reduced compounds, not oxidized ones. The deep-ocean hydrothermal vent has been taken as a paradigmatic setting, at least as common on the very early earth as today. Here, reduction is the order of the day, with electrons rampant, and serpentinzation a driving mineral process, which liberates reducing power, and generates methane and hydrogen sulfide. This is one home of anaerobic life- an under-appreciated demimond of micro-organisms that today still permeate deep sediments, rocks, hydrothermal vents, and other geologic settings we regard as "inhospitable". An example is the methanogens- archaea that fix CO2 using the local reducing power of hydrogen, and emit methane. Methane! A compound we in our oxygen atmosphere regard as energy-rich and burn in vast amounts, these archaea regard as a waste product. The reason is that they live where reduction, not oxidation, is the order of the day, and they slow down and harness that ambient (chemical gradient) power just as we do in reverse. This division of aerobic vs anaerobic, which implies metabolisms that run in opposite directions, is fundamental, accounting for the hidden nature of these communities, and why oxygen is so toxic to their members.

By now it is quite well known that not only was the early earth, and thus early life, anoxic; but the broadest phylogenies of life that look for our most distant ancestors using molecular sequences also place anaerobes like methanogenic archaea and acetogenic bacteria at the earliest points. Whether archaea or bacteria came first is not clear- they branch very deeply, and perhaps earlier than any phylogenetic method using the molecular clues can ever tell. Thus the archaeal progenitor of the eukaryotic host appears to have been anaerobic, and may have entered into a dependence with a hydrogen-generating, methane-using bacterium which had already evolved an extensive metabolism compatible with oxygen, but not yet dependent on it. It was only later that the oxygen-using capacity of this partner come to such prominence, after oxygen came to dominate the biosphere so completely, and after the partner had replaced most of the host's metabolism with its own enzymes for heterotrophic use (i.e. fermentation) of complex carbon compounds.

This overturns the image that was originally fostered by Darwin, in a rare lapse of prophetic skill, who imagined life originating in a quiet sunlit pool, the primordial soup that has been sought like a holy grail. The Miller-Urey experiments were premised on having complex compounds available in such a broth, so that heterotrophic nascent cells just had to reach out an choose what they wanted. But these ideas above end up proposing that life did not begin in a soup, rather, it began in a chemical vortex, possibly a very hot one, where nascent cells built an autotrophic metabolism based on reducing/fixing carbon from CO2, (the dominant form of carbon on early earth), using the abundant ambient reducing power, and local minerals as catalysts. Thus the energetics and metabolism were established first, on a highly sustainable basis, after which complexities like cell formation, the transition from mineral to hybrid mineral/organic catalysts, and the elaboration of RNA for catalysis and replication, could happen.

Much of this remains speculative, but one tell-tale is the minerals that underpin much of metabolism. Iron-sulfur complexes still lie at the heart of many electron transfer catalysts, as do several other key metals. RNA is also prone to oxidation, so would have been more robust in an anoxic world. More generally, this theory may widen our opinions about life on other planets. Oxygen may be a sign of some forms of life, and essential for us, but is hardly necessary for the presence of life at all. Exotic places with complex chemistries, such as the gas giant planets, may have fostered life in forms we are unfamiliar with.

• Maybe, there are too many of us.
• Order vs justice.
• American institutions, dying of bureaucratic sclerosis, politics, and corruption.
• What serious contact tracing would look like.