Are Archaea Archaic?

It remains controversial whether the archaeal domain of life is 1 or 4.5 billion years old. That is a big difference!

Back in the 1970's, the nascent technologies of molecular analysis and DNA sequencing produced a big surprise- that hidden in the bogs and hot springs of the world are micro-organisms so extremely different from known bacteria and protists that they were given their own domain on the tree of life. These are now called the archaea, and in addition to being deeply different from bacteria, they were eventually found to be the progenitors of eukaryotic cell- the third (and greatest!) domain of life that arose later in the history of the biosphere. The archaeal cell contributed most of the nuclear, informational, membrane management, and cytoskeletal functions, while one or more assimilated bacteria (most prominently the future mitochondrion and chloroplast) contributed most of the metabolic functions, as well as membrane lipid synthesis and peroxisomal functions.

Carl Woese, who discovered and named archaea, put his thumb heavily on the scale with that name, (originally archaebacteria), suggesting that these new cells were not just an independent domain of life, totally distinct from bacteria, but were perhaps the original cell- that is, the LUCA, or last universal common ancestor. All this was based on the sequences of rRNA genes, which form the structural and catalytic core of the ribosome, and are conserved in all known life. But it has since become apparent that sequences of this kind, which were originally touted as "molecular clocks", or even "chronometers" are nothing of the kind. They bear the traces of mutations that happen along the way, and, being highly important and conserved, do not track the raw mutation rate, (which itself is not so uniform either), but rather the rate at which change is tolerated by natural selection. And this rate can be wildly different at different times, as lineages go through crises, bottlenecks, adaptive radiations, and whatever else happened in the far, far distant past.

Carl Woese, looking over filmed spots of 32P labeled ribosomal RNA from different species, after size separation by electrophoresis. This is how RNAs were analyzed, back in 1976, and such rough analysis already suggested that archaea were something very different from bacteria.

There since has been a tremendous amount of speculation, re-analysis, gathering of more data, and vitriol in the overall debate about the deep divergences in evolution, such as where eukaryotes come from, and where the archaea fit into the overall scheme. Compared with the rest of molecular biology, where experiments routinely address questions productively and efficiently due to a rich tool chest and immediate access to the subject at hand, deep phylogeny is far more speculative and prone to subjective interpretation, sketchy data, personal hobbyhorses, and abusive writing. A recent symposium in honor of one of its more argumentative practitioners made that clear, as his ideas were being discarded virtually at the graveside.

Over the last decade, estimates of the branching date of archaea from the rest of the tree of life have varied from 0.8 to 4.5 Gya (billion years ago). That is a tremendous range, and is a sign of the difficulty of this field. The frustrations of doing molecular phylogeny are legion, just as the temptations are alluring. Firstly, there are very few landmarks in the fossil record to pin all this down. There are stromatolites from roughly 3.5 Gya, which pin down the first documented life of any kind. Second are eukaryotic fossils, which start, at the earliest, about 1.5 Gya. Other microbial fossils pin down occasional sub-groups of bacteria, but archaea are not represented in the fossil record at all, being hardly distinguishable from bacteria in their remains. Then we get the Cambrian explosion of multicellular life, roughly 0.5 Gya. That is pretty much it for the fossil record, aside from the age of the moon, which is about 4.5 Gya and gives us the baseline of when the earth became geologically capable of supporting life of any kind.

The molecules of living organisms, however, form a digital record of history. Following evolutionary theory, each organism descends from others, and carries, in mutated and altered form, traces of that history. We have parts of our genomes that vary with each generation, (useful for forensics and personal identification), we have other parts that show how we changed and evolved from other apes, and we have yet other areas that vary hardly at all- that carry recognizable sequences shared with all other forms of life, and presumably with LUCA. This is a real treasure trove, if only we can make sense of it.

But therein lies the rub. As mentioned above, these deeply conserved sequences are hardly chronometers. So for all the data collection and computer wizardry, the data itself tells a mangled story. Rapid evolution in one lineage can make it look much older than it really is, confounding the whole tree. Over the years, practitioners have learned to be as judicious as possible in selecting target sequences, while getting as many as possible into the mix. For example, adding up the sequences of 50-odd ribosomal proteins can give more and better data than assembling the 2 long-ish ribosomal RNAs. They provide more and more diverse data. But they have their problems as well, since some are much less conserved than others, and some were lost or gained along the way. 

A partisan of the later birth of archaea provides a phylogenetic tree with countless microbial species, and one bold claim: "inflated" distances to the archaeal and eukaryotic stems. This is given as the reason that archaea (lower part of the diagram, including eukaryotes, termed "archaebacteria"), looks very ancient, but really just sped away from its originating bacterial parent, (the red bacteria), estimated at about 1 Gya. This tree is based on an aligned concatentation of 26 universally conserved ribosomal protein sequences, (51 from eukaryotes), with custom adjustments.

So there has been a camp that claims that the huge apparent / molecular distance between the archaea and other cells is just such a chimera of fast evolution. Just as the revolution that led to the eukaryotic cell involved alot of molecular change including the co-habitation of countless proteins that had never seen each other before, duplications / specializations, and many novel inventions, whatever process led to the archaeal cell (from a pre-existing bacterial cell) might also have caused the key molecules we use to look into this deep time to mutate much more rapidly than is true elsewhere in the vast tree of life. What are the reasons? There is the general disbelief / unwillingness to accept someone else's work, and evidence like possible horizontal transfers of genes from chloroplasts to basal archaea, some large sequence deletion features that can be tracked through these lineages and interpreted to support late origination, some papering over of substantial differences in membrane and metabolic systems, and there are plausible (via some tortured logic) candidates for an originating, and late-evolving, bacterial parent. 

This thread of argument puts the origin of eukaryotes roughly at 0.8 Gya, which is, frankly, uncomfortably close to the origination of multicellular life, and gives precious little time for the bulk of eukaryotic diversity to develop, which exists largely, as shown above, at the microbial level. (Note that "Animalia" in the tree above is a tiny red blip among the eukaryotes.) All this is quite implausible, even to a casual reader, and makes this project hard to take seriously, despite its insistent and voluminous documentation.

Parenthetically, there was a fascinating paper that used the evolution of the genetic code itself to make a related point, though without absolute time attributions. The code bears hallmarks of some amino acids being added relatively late (tryptophan, histidine), while others were foundational from the start (glycine, alanine), when it may have consisted of two RNA bases (or even one) rather than three. All of this took place long before LUCA, naturally. This broad analysis of genetic code usage argued that bacteria tend to use a more ancient subset of the code, which may reflect their significantly more ancient position on the tree of life. While the full code was certainly in place by the time of LUCA, there may still at this time have been, in the inherited genome / pool of proteins, a bias against the relatively novel amino acids. This finding implies that the time of archaeal origination was later than the origination of bacteria, by some unspecified but significant amount.

So, attractive as it would be to demote the archaea from their perch as super-ancient organisms, given their small sizes, small genomes, specialization in extreme environments, and peripheral ecological position relative to bacteria, that turns out to be difficult to do. I will turn, then, to a very recent paper that gives what I think is much more reasoned and plausible picture of the deeper levels of the tree of life, and the best general picture to date. This paper is based on the protein sequences of the rotary ATPases that are universal, and were present in LUCA, despite their significant complexity. Indeed, the more we learn about LUCA, the more complete and complex this ancestor turns out to be. Our mitochondrion uses a (bacterial) F-type ATPase to synthesize ATP from the food-derived proton gradient. Our lysosomes use a (archaeal) V-type ATPase to drive protons into / acidify the lysosome in exchange for ATP. These are related, derived from one distant ancestor, and apparently each was likely to have been present in LUCA. Additionally, each ATPase is composed of two types of subunits, one catalytic, and one non-catalytic, which originated from an ancient protein duplication, also prior to LUCA. The availability of these molecular cousins / duplications provides helpful points of comparison throughout, particularly for locating the root of the evolutionary tree.

Phylogenetic trees based on ATP synthase enzymes that are present in all forms of life. On left is shown the general tree, with branch points of key events / lineages. On right are shown sub-trees for the major types of the ATP synthase, whether catalytic subunit (c), non-catalytic (n), F-type, common in bacteria, or V type, common in archaea. Note how congruent these trees are. At bottom right in the tiny print is a guide to absolute time, and the various last common ancestors.

This paper also works quite hard to pin the molecular data to the fossil and absolute time record, which is not always provided The bottom line is that archaea by this tree arise quite early, (see above), co-incident with or within about 0.5 Gy of LUCA, which was bacterial, at roughly 4.4 Gya. The bacterial and archaeal last common ancestors are dated to 4.3 and 3.7 Gya, respectively. The (fused) eukaryotic last common ancestor dates to about 1.9 Gya, with the proto-mitochondrion's individual last common ancestor among the bacteria some time before that, at roughly 2.4 Gya. 

This time line makes sense on many fronts. First, it provides a realistic time frame for the formation and diversification of eukaryotes. It puts their origin right around the great oxidation event, which is when oxygen became dominant in earth's atmosphere, (about 2 to 2.4 Gya), which was a precondition for the usefulness of mitochondria to what are otherwise anaerobic archaeal cells. It places the origin of archaea (LACA) a substantial stretch after the origin of bacteria, which agrees with the critic's points above that bacteria are the truly basal lineage of all life, and archaea, while highly different and pretty archaic, also share a lot of characteristics with bacteria, and perhaps more so with certain early lineages than with others that came later. The distinction between LUCA and the last common bacterial ancestor (LBCA) is a technical one given the trees they were working from, and are not, given the ranges of age presented, (see figure above), significantly different.

I believe this field is settling down, and though this paper, working from only a subset of the most ancient sequences plus fossil set-points, is hardly the last word, it appears to represent a consensus view and is the best picture to date of the deepest and most significant waypoints in the deep history of life. This is what comes from looking through microscopes, and finding entire invisible worlds that we had no idea existed. Genetic sequencing is another level over that of microscopy, looking right at life's code, and at its history, if darkly. What we see in the macroscopic world around us is only the latest act in a drama of tremendous scale and antiquity.

• Platitude.
• There are a lot of single-celled eukaryotes.
• Hitting bottom.