Science1 distinct publisher3 min readUpdated
Bill Martin's group argues in Science Advances that the last universal common ancestor was vent chemistry, not a cell, and that bacteria and archaea became alive separately.
The Scientist · Science desk

Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Bill Martin's group argues in Science Advances that the last universal common ancestor was vent chemistry, not a cell, and that bacteria and archaea became alive separately.
Bill Martin's group at Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf has published evidence in Science Advances that the two oldest lineages of the tree of life descend independently from a single source that was not yet alive [1][2]. The consequence, if it survives scrutiny, is that origin-of-life research stops hunting for one event and starts explaining a chemistry productive enough to have made more than one.
The last universal common ancestor is usually drawn as an ur-organism, a primitive bacterium-like cell at the root of everything [3]. Martin and his colleagues instead describe a chemical system formed in the environment of hydrothermal vents, where a chemical brew warmed by volcanic activity spills across the seafloor [4][5]. Their LUCA had a primitive form of genetic encoding and metabolic reactions for harnessing energy [6], but the researchers say some of those reactions were catalysed by simple metallic elements in the vent minerals rather than by protein enzymes, as happens in every organism now [7]. Their phrase for it is part organic, part rock [7].
The method is phylogenetic reconstruction, a mathematical back-extrapolation from the genetics of living organisms, applied here to the metabolic networks of bacteria and archaea [11]. The differences the team finds run all the way down to the last bacterial and last archaeal common ancestors [12]. Metabolism is a cycle: an environmental energy source is converted into energy-rich compounds, those drive enzymatic steps, and a final set of reactions resets the network so it can run again [18]. In the reconstructed cycles of both ancestors, the team reports missing links, which implies LUCA lacked the enzymes for those steps [13]. Martin puts the shortfall bluntly: LUCA only had genes for about half of metabolism [14].
The load-bearing observation is not the gaps but what fills them. According to lead author Natalie Mrnjavac, there are cases where the ancestors of bacteria and of archaea independently evolved structurally distinct enzymes to catalyse the same essential metabolic reaction [15]. Two different protein solutions to one chemical problem is the signature you would expect if the problem was being solved after the split, in two places, by descendants of something that had been outsourcing the reaction to minerals [20]. Nick Lane of University College London, who was not involved, says there is truth in it [9]. The group's own 2016 work already pointed to a LUCA reliant on its environment; what was missing then, Mrnjavac says, was experimental data on the specific functions the environment could have promoted [10].
The obvious alternative is that the holes are artefacts. Absent enzymes may simply reflect methodological limits of phylogenetic reconstruction, which other groups have previously assumed to be the case [16]. Boston University biologist Daniel Segre raises a further alternative in the reporting, though the text available to us breaks off mid-question [17]. That distinction matters more than the headline: a reconstruction gap is cheap, and a non-homologous enzyme pair is not.
Watch whether independent reconstruction teams recover the same paired, structurally distinct enzymes for the same reactions, and whether bench work shows vent-mineral metals catalysing precisely the steps reported as missing, at rates that would keep a cycle turning [7][15]. Darwin's question dates to 1871 and concerns events around four billion years ago [19]; the useful test here is whether one specific list of reactions can be run on rock.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
Evolutionary biologist Bill Martin of Heinrich Heine University Duesseldorf and colleagues present evidence in a paper in Science Advances that life might have, in effect, begun twice.
The team argues that the two earliest lineages of Darwin's tree of life sprang independently from a single source that was itself not yet truly alive.
In the view of Martin and his colleagues, LUCA was not exactly biological but rather a chemical system formed in the unique environment created by hydrothermal vents.
The researchers say some of the metabolic reactions were catalysed not by elaborate protein enzymes, as in all organisms today, but by simple metallic chemical elements found in the hydrothermal vents' minerals; LUCA, they say, was part organic, part rock.
Biochemist Nick Lane of University College London, an origins-of-life researcher who was not involved in the study, says: "I think there's truth in it."
The last universal common ancestor (LUCA) is generally regarded as a kind of ur-organism: a primitive bacterium-like cell from which all life on Earth has descended.
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
One peer-reviewed paper, inference from absence, counter-explanations unresolved
The evidentiary base is a single Science Advances paper reported by a single outlet. It has real methodological substance - phylogenetic reconstruction of LBCA and LACA metabolic networks, a quantified shortfall ('about half of metabolism'), named candidate metal catalysts - and one independent researcher offers qualified support. But the central step is an argument from absence in a reconstruction, and the article itself preserves two live alternatives (reconstruction incompleteness, later enzyme substitution). No experimental catalysis result, dataset or replication is described, so the claim is plausible-but-unsettled rather than established.
No adoption signal in supplied sources
This is a basic-science hypothesis. The supplied source contains no releases, deployments, benchmarks, citation counts, follow-on studies or usage disclosures, so there is nothing to measure and no basis for inferring uptake within the origins-of-life community.
Headline framing outruns a contested inference
The framing that LUCA 'may predate life itself' and that life 'began twice' is stated more decisively than the underlying evidence supports: the finding is a pattern of gaps in a reconstruction, the sole independent voice offers only 'I think there's truth in it', and two alternative explanations are left standing in the same article. The gap is modest rather than severe precisely because the reporting itself surfaces the caveats and quotes the critics rather than burying them.
Authors extending their own long-running hypothesis; consumer-subscription publisher
Two incentive facts are visible in the supplied material rather than inferred. First, the lead author states the group's 2016 work already argued LUCA was environment-reliant, so this paper extends the Duesseldorf team's own established position - a normal but non-neutral research-programme interest. Second, the publisher is a subscription-funded consumer science magazine and the body carries an inline appeal to subscribe, which favours arresting framing of an unsettled result. Nothing in the source indicates funding conflicts, commercial sponsorship or vendor interest, so the score stays mid-range.
Clear reporting, but one publisher and one primary study
Confidence in this assessment is moderate. The single source is detailed, names its institutions and quotes both authors and two uninvolved researchers, which makes the claim structure easy to characterise. It is limited, however, by having no second publisher for triangulation, no access to the paper's methods, a truncated version of Segre's objection in the ledger, and no adoption evidence at all - so several dimensions rest on one document.
science
Smarter Models Are Better Followers: LLM Agents Lock Into Majority Views At 1,000-Agent Scale1 distinct publisher
invest
Bankruptcy Filings Rose 12% in June While 2025 Job Growth Was Revised To Nothing1 distinct publisher
science
Forty-two Jomon genomes put a date on Ice Age isolation and a frequency on cold alleles1 distinct publisher
science
Marsh plants beat salinity at predicting methane, and blue-carbon ledgers were only half audited1 distinct publisher
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 20, 2026