Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 7, 23

The RNA World Hypothesis: The Worst Theory of the Early Evolution of Life (Except for All the Others)(A)

Affiliations

The RNA World Hypothesis: The Worst Theory of the Early Evolution of Life (Except for All the Others)(A)

Harold S Bernhardt. Biol Direct.

Abstract

The problems associated with the RNA world hypothesis are well known. In the following I discuss some of these difficulties, some of the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed, and some of the problems with these alternative models. From a biosynthetic - as well as, arguably, evolutionary - perspective, DNA is a modified RNA, and so the chicken-and-egg dilemma of "which came first?" boils down to a choice between RNA and protein. This is not just a question of cause and effect, but also one of statistical likelihood, as the chance of two such different types of macromolecule arising simultaneously would appear unlikely. The RNA world hypothesis is an example of a 'top down' (or should it be 'present back'?) approach to early evolution: how can we simplify modern biological systems to give a plausible evolutionary pathway that preserves continuity of function? The discovery that RNA possesses catalytic ability provides a potential solution: a single macromolecule could have originally carried out both replication and catalysis. RNA - which constitutes the genome of RNA viruses, and catalyzes peptide synthesis on the ribosome - could have been both the chicken and the egg! However, the following objections have been raised to the RNA world hypothesis: (i) RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically; (ii) RNA is inherently unstable; (iii) catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only; and (iv) the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited. I will offer some possible responses to these objections in the light of work by our and other labs. Finally, I will critically discuss an alternative theory to the RNA world hypothesis known as 'proteins first', which holds that proteins either preceded RNA in evolution, or - at the very least - that proteins and RNA coevolved. I will argue that, while theoretically possible, such a hypothesis is probably unprovable, and that the RNA world hypothesis, although far from perfect or complete, is the best we currently have to help understand the backstory to contemporary biology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A proposal for the origin of tRNA through the ligation of a hairpin duplex catalyzed by an ancestral self-splicing group I-type intron based on proposals by Di Giulio [41], and Dick and Schamel [49]. In this depiction, the intron is shown as originating from a 3′ extension of one of the precursor hairpins formed by a transcriptional runoff error. aa indicates the amino acid binding site, but is not meant to imply that an amino acid was necessarily attached here during the intron ligation events.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 47 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Benner SA, Kim HJ, Yang Z. Setting the stage: the history, chemistry, and geobiology behind RNA. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012;4:a003541. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a003541. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Robertson MP, Joyce GF. The origins of the RNA world. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012;4:a003608. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a003608. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernhardt HS, Tate WP. Evidence from glycine transfer RNA of a frozen accident at the dawn of the genetic code. Biol Direct. 2008;3:53. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-3-53. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernhardt HS, Tate WP. The transition from noncoded to coded protein synthesis: did coding mRNAs arise form stability-enhancing binding partners to tRNAs? Biol Direct. 2010;5:16. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-5-16. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernhardt HS, Tate WP. Primordial soup or vinaigrette: did the RNA world evolve at acidic pH? Biol Direct. 2012;7:4. doi: 10.1186/1745-6150-7-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback