4.6 Article

Beating the acetyl coenzyme A-pathway to the origin of life

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0258

关键词

bioenergetics; origin of life; carbon fixation; alkaline hydrothermal vent; methanotrophy; Wood-Ljungdahl pathways

类别

资金

  1. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  2. NASA Astrobiology Institute (Icy Worlds)
  3. French Agence Nationale pour la Recherche [ANR-Blanc-MC2]
  4. U.S. Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Attempts to draft plausible scenarios for the origin of life have in the past mainly built upon palaeogeochemical boundary conditions while, as detailed in a companion article in this issue, frequently neglecting to comply with fundamental thermodynamic laws. Even if demands from both palaeogeochemistry and thermodynamics are respected, then a plethora of strongly differing models are still conceivable. Although we have no guarantee that life at its origin necessarily resembled biology in extant organisms, we consider that the only empirical way to deduce how life may have emerged is by taking the stance of assuming continuity of biology from its inception to the present day. Building upon this conviction, we have assessed extant types of energy and carbon metabolism for their appropriateness to conditions probably pertaining in those settings of the Hadean planet that fulfil the thermodynamic requirements for life to come into being. Wood-Ljungdahl (WL) pathways leading to acetyl CoA formation are excellent candidates for such primordial metabolism. Based on a review of our present understanding of the biochemistry and biophysics of acetogenic, methanogenic and methanotrophic pathways and on a phylogenetic analysis of involved enzymes, we propose that a variant of modern methanotrophy is more likely than traditional WL systems to date back to the origin of life. The proposed model furthermore better fits basic thermodynamic demands and palaeogeochemical conditions suggested by recent results from extant alkaline hydrothermal seeps.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据