
==== Front
Chem Sci
Chem Sci
SC
CSHCBM
Chemical Science
2041-6520
2041-6539
The Royal Society of Chemistry

39129775
d4sc03384a
10.1039/d4sc03384a
Chemistry
Gradual evolution of a homo-l-peptide world on homo-d-configured RNA and DNA†
† Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4sc03384a

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8929-046X
Węgrzyn Ewa a‡
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1587-9811
Mejdrová Ivana a‡
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7898-2831
G-4799-2012
Carell Thomas a
a Department of Chemistry, Center for Nucleic Acids Therapies at the Institute for Chemical Epigenetics (ICE-M), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) München Butenandtstrasse 5-13 81377 Munich Germany thomas.carell@lmu.de

‡ These authors contributed equally.

2 8 2024
11 9 2024
2 8 2024
15 35 1417114176
23 5 2024
26 7 2024
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry
2024
The Royal Society of Chemistry
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence. You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.
Modern life requires the translation of genetic information – encoded by nucleic acids – into proteins, which establishes the essential link between genotype and phenotype. During translation, exclusively l-amino acids are loaded onto transfer RNA molecules (tRNA), which are then connected at the ribosome to give homo-l-proteins. In contrast to the homo-l-configuration of amino acids and proteins, the oligonucleotides involved are all d-configured (deoxy)ribosides. Previously, others and us have shown that if peptide synthesis occurs at homo d-configured oligonucleotides, a pronounced l-amino acid selectivity is observed, which reflects the d-sugar/l-amino acid world that evolved in nature. Here we further explore this astonishing selectivity. We show a peptide-synthesis/recapture-cycle that can lead to a gradual enrichment and hence selection of a homo-l-peptide world. We show that even if peptides with a mixed l/d-stereochemistry are formed, they are not competitive against the homo-l-counterparts. We also demonstrate that this selectivity is not limited to RNA but that peptide synthesis on DNA features the same l-amino acid preference. In total, the data bring us a step closer to an understanding of how homochirality on Earth once evolved.

Nucleic acids with hypermodified nucleosides perform stereoselective RNA/DNA-mediated peptide coupling, followed by thermal release of the peptide, leading to temperature-driven one-pot cycles with gradual homochiral l-peptide enrichment.

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 10.13039/501100001659 CA275/11-3 CRC1309 CRC1032 CRC1361 Volkswagen Foundation 10.13039/501100001663 EvoRib European Commission 10.13039/501100000780 741912 HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions 10.13039/100018694 861381 Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung; 10.13039/501100002347 03ZU1201AA pubstatusPaginated Article
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Life, as we know it, requires nucleic acid biomolecules to encode genetic information and amino acid–based proteins to catalyse biochemical reactions, that are essential for the maintenance of life. While the genetic code contains the blueprint for the multitude of vital proteins, the proteins in turn are essential for metabolism and required for decoding the sequence information and its replication. This strong interdependence of the genotype established by nucleic acids and the phenotype established by proteins is a hallmark of all life on Earth.1 The element where the genotype “meets” the phenotype is the ribosome.2–4 Consequently, the evolution of the ribosome is a chicken-and-egg conundrum and one of the most challenging mysteries of the origin of life.5,6 The translation machinery that is in place today shows an extremely high stereoselectivity towards l-amino acids. First, a specific transfer RNA (tRNA) consisting of d-riboses is selectively loaded with the corresponding l-amino acid.7 In the step of translation, these l-amino acids are connected to other l-amino acids in a messenger RNA (mRNA)-based templation process, catalysed by the RNA components (all l-configured) of the ribosome. The exact time-point when homochirality emerged is unknown. Mechanistically it was suggested that it was caused by a small initial enantiomeric imbalance on the monomer level,8 followed by processes of chiral amplification,9,10 leading to an enantiomeric induction between homochiral nucleic acids and peptides.11,12

Numerous ideas exist of how the decoding13 could have evolved,14–16 which are all connected to the RNA world concept.17–19 This model predicts that in prebiotic times it was only RNA which encoded information and which also catalysed the essential reactions such as loading itself with specific amino acids.20–22 In the RNA world, the process of connecting amino acids was catalysed by RNA.22,23 The fact that the peptidyl transferase center of the ribosome is composed of RNA,24 provides strong support for this “RNA-only” idea.25,26

Currently, the idea of an RNA-only world is questioned. Recent studies27 suggest instead the coexistence/coevolution of RNA with other entities like peptides,28 cofactors29,30 or DNA.31–33 Even a DNA-first theory was formulated.33,34 The fact that most known RNA catalysts have rather low turn-over numbers strongly suggests that amino acids, peptides and cofactors might have been early on involved.35 Already in 1976, White pointed out that cofactors alone could be considered as remnants of early life ribozymes,29,30 which acted in concert with sulfur-containing modified nucleosides.36 Recently the idea of an RNA-peptide world was brought forward,37,38 with the peptides adding stability and catalytic capabilities to the RNA.39 Such an early partnership could have been the foundation for the development of early amino acid-tRNA synthetases.40

We recently introduced the idea, that the high number of non-canonical nucleosides present in RNA, are living fossils41,42 of an early RNA/DNA world.43 We could show that these non-canonical nucleosides add functions to RNA that would strongly benefit the evolution of life.44 For example, non-canonical nucleosides t6A, g6A, as well as (m)nm5U,45–47 enable RNA to grow peptides on itself in a process which can establish an RNA-peptide world (Fig. 1).48 The loading with amino acids and peptides and their connection to more complex structures is in principle possible under prebiotically plausible freezing/thawing conditions.49,50 It was shown, that this loading reaction exhibits no stereochemical bias, meaning that l- and d-amino acids are loaded onto RNA with no preference.12,51 However, when the amino acids are allowed to react with each other to give peptides, a large kinetic advantage was observed for the l-configured amino acids.11,52–57

Fig. 1 Cold/hot cycle of amino acid loading onto RNA (steps I and II) and iterative peptide synthesis cycle, that could lead to homochiral peptide formation in an outgrowth process. The steps of the cycle include: annealing of the complementary acceptor and donor strands (step 0), stereoselective peptide coupling (step 1), thermal cleavage of the peptide from the donor strand (step 2), followed by a release of the peptide-RNA acceptor conjugate (step 3), that can then recapture another amino acid-loaded donor strand (step 4), and enter another cycle. R stands for l- or d-Val.

Based on this observation, we can envision a primitive peptide synthesis cycle as depicted in Fig. 1, that is driven by cold/hot cycles (−20 °C to +90 °C). In this model, amino acids (aa) and small peptides react (via nitrosation of N6-urea-A) with RNA (step I and II) to give (m6)aa6A-containing RNA-donor strands ((m6)aa6A-RNA),51 which can hybridize to complementary RNA acceptor strands containing the non-canonical nucleoside (m)nm5U (step 0) in the cold. Upon activation and reaction of the amino acids with the (m)nm5U nucleoside (step 1), a hairpin structure with a high thermal stability is formed.48 During a phase of increased temperature (90 °C), cleavage of the thermally labile urea bond will occur (step 2) together with an immediate dissociation of the strands (step 3). Upon cooling of the solution, a new donor strand can bind (step 4) to continue the hot/cold-governed synthesis cycle.58 In the prebiotic context, these temperature variations could have originated from volcanic eruptions, meteorite impact or even day/night-dependent presence of sunlight.59,60 Current research reports on one hand cold, even frozen environments on early Earth,61,62 and on the other hot temperatures provided by the hydrothermal vents.63

We hypothesise that the initially formed peptides were short and released into the environment upon degradation of the RNA. And such they could have been taken up again by donor strands to continue the process at another RNA “host” strand (step II). Here we show that such a scenario is realistic and we show that homo-l peptides would feature a clear competitive advantage over peptide strands contaminated with d-amino acids.

Results and discussion

In order to establish a stereochemical self-selecting peptide synthesis cycle, we intended to investigate the one-pot growth of a peptide using a racemic mixture of l- and d-Val RNA donor strands (Fig. 2). We selected valine because it is one of the simplest chiral amino acids for which a prebiotic existence is plausible.64,65 Valine has also been observed in meteorites66,67 and its formation has been demonstrated in Urey–Miller-type spark discharge experiments.68–71

Fig. 2 One-pot synthesis cycle scheme and HPLC-chromatograms. For reasons of simplicity, only the products formed in detectable amounts and relevant for further reactions are indicated in the scheme. Yields were determined by HPLC using the calibration curves of reference compounds (Fig. S2 and S3†).

For the experiment, we first synthesized several 7-mer RNA donor strands with either l- or d-Val ON1L (l = l-Val) or ON1D (d = d-Val), or a stereochemically mixed Val-dipeptide, connected to the RNA via 5′-N6-methylcarbamoyl adenosine nucleosides (m6-l/d-Val6Am). As the complementary RNA acceptor strand we prepared an 11-mer RNA strand with a 3′-l- or d-Val-modified 5-methylaminomethyl uridine (mnm5U) nucleotide (ON2L or ON2D). 2′OMe nucleotides were used for the construction of the RNA to increase the thermal stability.72,73 We next combined all the donor ON1L or ON1D with all the acceptor ON2L or ON2D strands in the cold part of the cycle and performed the peptide coupling with EDC/Sulfo-NHS as activator (MES buffer pH 6, NaCl, r.t., 2 h), to obtain the different hairpin products ON3LL, ON3DL and ON3LD, ON3DD (not shown). In the hot part of the cycle, the hairpin products were cleaved (acetate buffer pH 4, NaCl, 90 °C, 48 h). As the result of the cycle we obtained in all cases the expected dipeptide products ON2LL, ON2DL and ON2LD, ON2DD (not shown), and the peptide-free m6A-RNA ON4, together with a small amount of the corresponding hydantoin by-product c-ON2LL, c-ON2LD, c-ON2DL or c-ON2DD (see Scheme S6 in ESI†).48 All the oligonucleotides formed were purified by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and characterized using MALDI-ToF mass spectrometry. The experiment showed that the hot/cold cycle is in all cases effective and the obtained products were next used as standards for the analysis of potential diastereoselectivities. It is known from literature, that the measured diastereoselectivity of peptide formation in the absence of the sugar is very low, arguing that it is sugar and the helical chirality that induces the selectivity.57

In order to analyse the diastereoselectivities, we next prepared an equimolar solution of 1 eq ON1L and 1 eq ON1D donor strands (always with Val) and added 1 eq of ON2L (Fig. 2 and S4†). The coupling reaction was performed as described above. By using the generated oligonucleotide products from above as references, we determined by HPLC a diastereoselectivity of 94 : 6 in favour of the ll-homochiral product ON3LL over the heterochiral dl-product ON3DL with an overall yield of 58%. After simple filtration of the crude reaction mixture to remove unreacted activator and exchange of the buffer solution, the crude product was introduced into the hot-phase cleavage reaction (48 h, 90 °C). We indeed obtained the cleaved product ON2LL with a diastereoselectivity of 98 : 2 for the ll-dipeptide over the second product ON2DL. In addition, the hydantoin by-products c-ON2LL and c-ON2DL were formed. The overall yield was 42% over the two steps.

The reaction mixture was next lyophilized (in analogy to a dry-down step) and the buffer was exchanged (comparable to fresh solution floating in a tidal process). We then added another portion of the equimolar mixture of ON1L and ON1D. After activation, we detected the formation of the hairpin product ON3LLL by HPLC and MALDI-ToF, albeit in a low yield of 3% (over three steps). The heterochiral product ON3LLD was not detected. We then went through another hot-phase and performed the cleavage reaction, which provided in 1% yield (over 4 steps) the RNA strand ON2LLL (Fig. 2 and S5; Table S8†). The main reason for the low yield is the large amount of possible side reactions due to a high number of reactants present in the one-pot mixture.12

Although we detected a high selectivity for the formation of the ll- and lll-products, we next wanted to learn how the presence of a d-contamination would influence the process. To study this, we synthesized the l,l-Val (ON1LL), l,d- (ON1LD), d,l- (ON1DL) and d,d-Val (ON1DD) RNA donors strands and performed the coupling reactions with either the ON2L or the ON2D acceptor strand. Again, in order to enable precise characterization, we first performed the coupling reactions with each donor–acceptor strand combination separately to obtain the tripeptide hairpin products, as reference compounds.

To study the diastereoselectivities (Fig. 3), we next prepared equimolar mixtures of the dipeptide RNA donor strands (referred to as ON1X and ON1Y, where X and Y corresponds to either LL, LD, DL or DD, while X ≠ Y).

Fig. 3 (A) General scheme for the competitive peptide coupling reactions of equimolar mixture of ON1X and ON1Y with (B) ON2L or (C) ON2D. X and Y can correspond to either LL, LD, DL or DD, while X ≠ Y. The HPL-chromatograms show the analysed crude reaction mixtures and the tables summarize the results obtained for the competitive coupling reactions, specifically product ratios of (B) [ON3XL]/[ON3YL] and (C) [ON3XD]/[ON3YD]. Reaction conditions: [ON1] = 50 μM; [ON2] = 50 μM; [buffer] = 100 mM; [NaCl] = 100 mM and [activator] = 50 mM. Yields were determined by HPLC analysis using the calibration curve of a reference compound (Fig. S2†).

We allowed the ON1X and ON1Y RNA oligonucleotides with the different dipeptides to compete for reactions with ON2L (Fig. 3A and B) or ON2D (Fig. 3A and C).

First, we allowed the equimolar mixtures of ON1X and ON1Y to react with ON2L, using EDC/Sulfo-NHS as the activator (MES buffer pH 6, NaCl, r.t., 2 h). The reaction mixtures were then analysed by HPLC (Fig. 3 and Table S9†). We observed in the reactions yields between 25–56%. Next, we determined the ratio between ON3XL and ON3YL. Again, high diastereoselectivities in favor of products that were formed with an l-Val in close proximity of the RNA were observed. The selectivity for ON3LLL over ON3LDL was only 59 : 41 (Fig. 3Ba), but for ON3LLL over ON3DLD we detected 81 : 19 (Fig. 3Bc), suggesting that the exchange of the l-amino acid directly at the nucleobase against the d-counterpart strongly decreases the diastereoselectivity. For the reaction of an equimolar mixture of ON1LD and ON1DD we observed a diastereoselectivity of 62 : 38 for the ON3LDL product over ON3DDL (Fig. 3Bg). Again, the more l-amino acids are present, the better is the peptide formation reaction. The ratios for the other combinations could not be calculated with certainty due to massive peak overlap.

In order to gain deeper insight how a d-amino acids positioned directly at the nucleobase influences the selectivities, we next repeated the competition reactions with ON2D (Fig. 3C and Table S9†). Now, we detected highly fluctuating results, but again, even for ON2D there is some selectivity to react with a donor strand containing a l-Val attached to the RNA-donor strand over a d-Val. We saw a rather limited influence of the second amino acid present in the donor strand. The highest stereoselectivity of 80 : 20 was observed for the products ON3LLDvs.ON3DLD (Fig. 3Cd). The overall yields were ranging from 24 to 50%.

We noticed during the study that the second amino acid of e.g.ON1LL undergoes a ca. 25% racemization when incubated under the described coupling conditions for 2 h. The mono-Val donors ON1L and ON1D, however, did not racemize when subjected to the same conditions. This phenomenon makes the analysis and interpretation of the described reactions difficult, but the general result is firmly established, that the homo-l situation is always winning.

To complete the set of experiments with dipeptide donors, we also analysed the competition reactions of ON1LL, ON1LD, ON1DL and ON1DD with a 1 : 1 mixture of ON2L and ON2D (Fig. 4 and S7†). For this experiment we prepared an equimolar mixture of ON2L and ON2D and allowed them to react with the dipeptide RNA donor strand ON1X under the described coupling conditions. The reaction with ON1LL showed a selectivity of 66 : 34 in favour of the homochiral lll-hairpin product ON3LLL over the product ON3LLD (Fig. 4). This diastereoselectivity decreased slightly when we used ON1LD (62 : 38, ON3LDL : ON3LDD). The d,d-Val donor ON1DD showed a reversed selectivity towards the homochiral all-d product ON3DDD of 71 : 29 compared to ON3DDL (Fig. S7d†). The coupling reaction with ON1DL could not be analysed due to a HPLC peak overlap of the product with an impurity.

Fig. 4 Competitive peptide coupling reactions of equimolar mixture of ON2L and ON2D with ON1X. X can correspond to either LL, LD, DL or DD. The table summarizes the results obtained for the competitive coupling reactions. Reaction conditions: [ON1] = 50 μM; [ON2] = 50 μM; [buffer] = 100 mM; [NaCl] = 100 mM and [activator] = 50 mM. Yields were determined by HPLC analysis using the calibration curve of a reference compound (Fig. S2†).

Finally, we wanted to investigate if the observed tendency to form homo-l products prevails when one moves from RNA to DNA in light of the recent discussion that life may have started with a DNA-world33 or a mixed RNA–DNA world.31 We therefore synthesized the DNA analogues of the donor strands dON1L and dON1D and the acceptor strands dON2L and dON2D by solid-phase oligonucleotide synthesis to form the hairpin products dON3. We conducted the competitive coupling reactions and observed the formation of the dON3LL with a high diastereoselectivity of 85 : 15 over the heterochiral product dON3DL (Fig. 5a). The reverse competition reaction yielded a 31 : 69 stereoselectivity for dON3LD over dON3DD (Fig. 5b). These results suggest that DNA will induce a similar diastereoselectivity towards the homo-l products.

Fig. 5 DNA-competitive peptide coupling reactions between dON1L and dON1D with (a) dON2L or (b) dON2D using EDC/Sulfo-NHS as activator. Yields were determined by HPLC analysis using the calibration curve of a reference compound (Fig. S2†).

In order to gain more information about the conformation of the RNA duplexes, we finally measured the circular dichroism (CD) spectra of three different solutions: (1) annealed RNA duplex of ON1L and ON2L, (2) hairpin duplex ON3LL and (3) the canonical analogue annealed RNA duplex of ON5 and ON6 (Fig. S9†). We observed CD-spectra typical for double-stranded A-form RNA with no significant changes introduced by the nucleobase modification or the hairpin formation between them.

Conclusions

In this work we explored the possibility of a primitive temperature-driven one-pot peptide synthesis cycle, in which stereoselective peptide coupling followed by thermal cleavage can lead to an enriched formation, albeit in low yields, of the homochiral all l-peptides.

We investigated how different stereochemical dipeptide combinations, namely the presence of l- and d-amino acids in the cycle, would influence the peptide-forming chemistry. We found that whatever combination we investigated, in almost all cases we observed faster reactions and higher yields with l-amino acids and homo-l-peptides. The l-situation outcompeted reactions with d-amino acids present on the donor or on the acceptor strand, especially when the (l-) amino acid was directly attached to the nucleobase and therefore in close contact with the nucleic acid strand. Important is the observation that this stereochemical “preferential handshake” (d-ribose and l-amino acid) is also true with d-deoxyribose, which forms DNA. It shows us that even in a putative prebiotic world in which DNA-only or a mixed DNA–RNA combination were the carrier of genetic information, the stereochemical preference for l amino acids prevails.

Data availability

The data supporting this article have been included as part of the ESI.†

Author contributions

E. W. and I. M. were responsible for data curation, formal analysis, investigation and visualisation. T. C. had the research idea and was in charge of funding acquisition, project administration and supervision. All authors were involved in the conceptualization and the writing of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary Material

SC-015-D4SC03384A-s001

We thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for supporting this research through the DFG grants: CA275/11-3 (ID: 326039064), CRC1309 (ID: 325871075, A4), CRC1032 (ID: 201269156, A5) and CRC1361 (ID: 393547839, P2). We thank the Volkswagen Foundation for funding this research (grant EvoRib). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement No. 741912 (EPiR) and the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 861381 (Nature-ETN). The research was supported by the BMBF in the framework of the Cluster4Future program (Cluster for Nucleic Acid Therapeutics Munich, CNATM) (Project ID: 03ZU1201AA).
==== Refs
References

Crick F. Nature 1970 227 561 563 10.1038/227561a0 4913914
Ramakrishnan V. Cell 2002 108 557 572 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00619-0 11909526
Steitz T. A. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008 9 242 253 10.1038/nrm2352 18292779
Yonath A. Saper M. A. Makowski I. Müssig J. Piefke J. Bartunik H. D. Bartels K. S. Wittmann H. G. J. Mol. Biol. 1986 187 633 636 10.1016/0022-2836(86)90342-6 3712439
Crick F. H. C. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 1958 12 138 163 13580867
Crick F. H. C. Brenner S. Klug A. Pieczenik G. Origins Life 1976 7 389 397 10.1007/BF00927934
Giegé R. and Eriani G. , in eLS, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, 2014, pp. 1007–1030
Hein J. E. Blackmond D. G. Acc. Chem. Res. 2012 45 2045 2054 10.1021/ar200316n 22353168
Breslow R. Levine M. S. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006 103 12979 12980 10.1073/pnas.0605863103 16938839
Breslow R. Cheng Z.-L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009 106 9144 9146 10.1073/pnas.0904350106 19478058
Tamura K. Schimmel P. Science 2004 305 1253 10.1126/science.1099141 15333830
Węgrzyn E. Mejdrová I. Müller F. Nainytė M. Escobar L. Carell T. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2024 63 e202319235 10.1002/anie.202319235
Agris P. F. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 32 223 238 10.1093/nar/gkh185 14715921
Guo X. Y. Su M. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023 24 197 10.3390/ijms24010197
Wolf Y. I. Koonin E. V. Biol. Direct 2007 2 14 10.1186/1745-6150-2-14 17540026
Seki M. Genes Genet. Syst. 2023 98 9 24 10.1266/ggs.22-00085 37032071
Gilbert W. Nature 1986 319 618 10.1038/319618a0
Joyce G. F. Nature 2002 418 214 221 10.1038/418214a 12110897
Bowman J. C. Hud N. V. Williams L. D. J. Mol. Evol. 2015 80 143 161 10.1007/s00239-015-9669-9 25739364
Jash B. Richert C. Chem. Sci. 2020 11 3487 3494 10.1039/C9SC05958J 34109020
Jash B. Tremmel P. Jovanovic D. Richert C. Nat. Chem. 2021 13 751 757 10.1038/s41557-021-00749-4 34312504
Lee N. Bessho Y. Wei K. Szostak J. W. Suga H. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2000 7 28 33 10.1038/71225 10625423
Agmon I. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 23 15756 10.3390/ijms232415756 36555394
Nissen P. Hansen J. Ban N. Moore P. B. Steitz T. A. Science 2000 289 920 930 10.1126/science.289.5481.920 10937990
Agmon I. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009 10 2921 2934 10.3390/ijms10072921 19742176
Bose T. Fridkin G. Davidovich C. Krupkin M. Dinger N. Falkovich A. H. Peleg Y. Agmon I. Bashan A. Yonath A. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022 50 1815 1828 10.1093/nar/gkac052 35137169
Tagami S. Li P. Dev., Growth Differ. 2023 65 167 174 10.1111/dgd.12845 36762966
Kunnev D. Life 2020 10 269 10.3390/life10110269 33153087
White III H. B. J. Mol. Evol. 1976 7 101 104 10.1007/BF01732468 1263263
Goldman A. D. Kacar B. J. Mol. Evol. 2021 89 127 133 10.1007/s00239-020-09988-4 33547911
Xu J. Chmela V. Green N. J. Russell D. A. Janicki M. J. Góra R. W. Szabla R. Bond A. D. Sutherland J. D. Nature 2020 582 60 66 10.1038/s41586-020-2330-9 32494078
Lindahl T. Nature 1993 362 709 715 10.1038/362709a0 8469282
Teichert J. S. Kruse F. M. Trapp O. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2019 58 9944 9947 10.1002/anie.201903400
Oró J. Miller S. L. Lazcano A. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1990 18 317 356 10.1146/annurev.ea.18.050190.001533 11538678
Bernhardt H. S. Biol. Direct 2012 7 23 10.1186/1745-6150-7-23 22793875
Cochrane J. C. Strobel S. A. RNA 2008 14 993 1002 10.1261/rna.908408 18430893
Kim Y. Opron K. Burton Z. F. Life 2019 9 37 10.3390/life9020037 31060233
Burton A. S. Stern J. C. Elsila J. E. Glavin D. P. Dworkin J. P. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012 41 5459 5472 10.1039/C2CS35109A 22706603
Gulik P. T. S. v. d. Life 2015 5 1629 1637 10.3390/life5041629 26580656
Carter Jr C. W. Nat. Hist. 2016 125 28 33 28659649
Robertson M. P. Miller S. L. Science 1995 268 702 705 10.1126/science.7732378 7732378
Schneider C. Becker S. Okamura H. Crisp A. Amatov T. Stadlmeier M. Carell T. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018 57 5943 5946 10.1002/anie.201801919 29533524
Becker S. Schneider C. Okamura H. Crisp A. Amatov T. Dejmek M. Carell T. Nat. Commun. 2018 9 163 10.1038/s41467-017-02639-1 29323115
Agmon I. Life 2024 14 277 10.3390/life14020277 38398786
Carell T. Brandmayr C. Hienzsch A. Müller M. Pearson D. Reiter V. Thoma I. Thumbs P. Wagner M. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2012 51 7110 7131 10.1002/anie.201201193
Zhou J.-B. Wang E.-D. Zhou X.-L. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2021 78 7087 7105 10.1007/s00018-021-03948-x 34605973
Suzuki T. Yashiro Y. Kikuchi I. Ishigami Y. Saito H. Matsuzawa I. Okada S. Mito M. Iwasaki S. Ma D. Zhao X. Asano K. Lin H. Kirino Y. Sakaguchi Y. Suzuki T. Nat. Commun. 2020 11 4269 10.1038/s41467-020-18068-6 32859890
Müller F. Escobar L. Xu F. Węgrzyn E. Nainytė M. Amatov T. Chan C. Y. Pichler A. Carell T. Nature 2022 605 279 284 10.1038/s41586-022-04676-3 35546190
Kitada K. Suda Y. Takenaka N. J. Phys. Chem. A 2017 121 5383 5388 10.1021/acs.jpca.7b03246 28662583
Menor-Salván C. Marín-Yaseli M. R. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2012 41 5404 5415 10.1039/C2CS35060B 22660387
Singer J. N. Müller F. M. Węgrzyn E. Hölzl C. Hurmiz H. Liu C. Escobar L. Carell T. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2023 62 e202302360 10.1002/anie.202302360 36881520
Lacey J. C. Thomas R. D. Staves M. P. Watkins C. L. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1991 1076 395 400 10.1016/0167-4838(91)90482-F 2001387
Tamura K. BioSystems 2008 92 91 98 10.1016/j.biosystems.2007.12.005 18272281
Wu L. F. Su M. Liu Z. Bjork S. J. Sutherland J. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021 143 11836 11842 10.1021/jacs.1c05746 34283595
Roberts S. J. Liu Z. Sutherland J. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022 144 4254 4259 10.1021/jacs.2c00772 35230111
Su M. Schmitt C. Liu Z. Roberts S. J. Liu K. C. Röder K. Jäschke A. Wales D. J. Sutherland J. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023 145 15971 15980 10.1021/jacs.3c03931 37435826
Doppleb O. Bremer J. Bechthold M. Sánchez Rico C. Göhringer D. Griesser H. Richert C. Chem.–Eur. J. 2021 27 13544 13551 10.1002/chem.202101630 34292623
Ross D. Deamer D. Life 2023 13 1749 10.3390/life13081749 37629605
Becker S. Schneider C. Crisp A. Carell T. Nat. Commun. 2018 9 5174 10.1038/s41467-018-07222-w 30538241
Charnay B. Le Hir G. Fluteau F. Forget F. Catling D. C. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2017 474 97 109 10.1016/j.epsl.2017.06.029
Le Vay K. Salibi E. Song E. Y. Mutschler H. Chem.–Asian J. 2020 15 214 230 10.1002/asia.201901205 31714665
de Wit M. J. Furnes H. Sci. Adv. 2016 2 e1500368 10.1126/sciadv.1500368 26933677
Martin W. Baross J. Kelley D. Russell M. J. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2008 6 805 814 10.1038/nrmicro1991 18820700
Longo L. M. Blaber M. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2012 526 16 21 10.1016/j.abb.2012.06.009 22772066
Longo L. M. Lee J. Blaber M. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013 110 2135 2139 10.1073/pnas.1219530110 23341608
Cronin J. R. Moore C. B. Science 1971 172 1327 1329 10.1126/science.172.3990.1327 17755206
Shimoyama A. Ponnamperuma C. Yanai K. Nature 1979 282 394 396 10.1038/282394a0
Miller S. L. Science 1953 117 528 529 10.1126/science.117.3046.528 13056598
Wolman Y. Haverland W. J. Miller S. L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1972 69 809 811 10.1073/pnas.69.4.809 16591973
Johnson A. P. Cleaves H. J. Dworkin J. P. Glavin D. P. Lazcano A. Bada J. L. Science 2008 322 404 10.1126/science.1161527 18927386
Parker E. T. Cleaves H. J. Dworkin J. P. Glavin D. P. Callahan M. Aubrey A. Lazcano A. Bada J. L. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011 108 5526 5531 10.1073/pnas.1019191108 21422282
Cummins L. L. Owens S. R. Risen L. M. Lesnik E. A. Freier S. M. McGee D. Guinosso C. J. Cook P. D. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995 23 2019 2024 10.1093/nar/23.11.2019 7541132
Decatur W. A. Fournier M. J. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2002 27 344 351 10.1016/S0968-0004(02)02109-6 12114023
