It Takes 2: RNA–DNA Mashup May Have Kick-Started Life on Earth

New research shows each molecule needed the other one

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Early life may have emerged from a mixture of RNA and DNA building blocks, developing the two nucleic acids simultaneously instead of evolving DNA from RNA.

According to the RNA world hypothesis, early life used RNA to carry genetic information and perform biochemical catalytic reactions. Over time, DNA developed from RNA as the carrier of genetic information and proteins appeared as biochemical catalysts.

As RNA gave way to DNA, some think a mixture of nucleotide building blocks would have been inevitable. As these nucleotides connected to form strands, the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of pure RNA and DNA duplexes would drive these nucleic acids to accumulate in primitive cells, while less thermally stable complexes containing one strand of RNA and one strand of DNA fell apart.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Ramanarayanan Krishnamurthy, at the Scripps Research Institute, and colleagues wondered if duplexes where each strand contains both RNA and DNA nucleotides were stable enough to have been possible intermediates during the transition from RNA to DNA. The researchers purchased commercially synthesised sequences of RNA and DNA, six to 16 bases long. In some sequences, they systematically changed purine RNA nucleotides, containing the bases adenine or guanine, into the corresponding DNA purines. In others, they changed pyrimidine RNA nucleotides, with cytidine or uracil bases, into pyrimidine DNA nucleotides with cytidine or thymidine bases. The result was several series of nucleic acid duplexes that ranged from having all RNA nucleotides to none at all.

To test the thermal stability of these sequences, the researchers heated each duplex to separate the strands. Then they measured the increase in UV absorption as the strands melted. The faster the absorption increased as the temperature increased, the faster the strands separated, indicating a less stable duplex. Many mixed duplexes with strands containing both RNA and DNA nucleotides melted as much as 20 degrees before pure RNA or pure DNA duplexes, indicating they were significantly less thermally stable than the pure duplexes.

Krishnamurthy says they were surprised to see this instability trend hold for a variety of sequences. Without ways to prevent these mixed sequences from forming or primitive catalysts to overcome their instability, the researchers imagine that the most efficient path to pure RNA and pure DNA duplexes would start from a mixture of both nucleotides, rather than that nucleotide mixture developing from a pool of pure RNA.

‘This paper presents significant results that will influence our thinking about the way that RNA and DNA could have interacted in primitive life,’ says David Deamer, at the University of California, Santa Cruz, US. Depending on conditions, however, RNA and DNA have very different abilities to withstand chemical changes like depurination, deamination, and hydrolysis. The chemical stability of these two nucleic acids should also be considered when thinking about how they could become incorporated into the earliest forms of life, he adds.

The assumption that a primitive world was not chemically sophisticated enough to differentiate RNA and DNA building blocks challenges some evidence for the capabilities of the RNA world, says Steven Benner, of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution in the US. Small molecules that enhance the activity of modern enzymes, such as coenzyme A, have RNA nucleotide tails. This indicates that these RNA cofactors could have been part of a RNA world able to assemble pure RNA and pure DNA from a pool of both nucleotides, he says.

This article is reproduced with permission from Chemistry World. The article was first published on September 26, 2016.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe