Research on the origin of life is highly heterogeneous. After a peculiar historical development, it still includes strongly opposed views which potentially hinder progress. In the 1st Interdisciplinary Origin of Life Meeting, early-career researchers gathered to explore the commonalities between theories and approaches, critical divergence points, and expectations for the future. We find that even though classical approaches and theories—e.g., bottom-up and top-down, RNA world vs. metabolism-first—have been prevalent in origin of life research, they are ceasing to be mutually exclusive and they can and should feed integrating approaches. Here we focus on pressing questions and recent developments that bridge the classical disciplines and approaches, and highlight expectations for future endeavours in origin of life research.

The origin of the genetic code and translation is a "notoriously difficult problem". In this survey we present a list of questions that a full theory of the genetic code needs to answer. We assess the leading hypotheses according to these criteria. The stereochemical, the coding coenzyme handle, the coevolution, the four-column theory, the error minimization and the frozen accident hypotheses are discussed. The integration of these hypotheses can account for the origin of the genetic code. But experiments are badly needed. Thus we suggest a host of experiments that could (in)validate some of the models. We focus especially on the coding coenzyme handle hypothesis (CCH). The CCH suggests that amino acids attached to RNA handles enhanced catalytic activities of ribozymes. Alternatively, amino acids without handles or with a handle consisting of a single adenine, like in contemporary coenzymes could have been employed. All three scenarios can be tested in in vitro compartmentalized systems.

The mutational robustness of the genetic code is rarely discussed in the context of biological diversity, such as codon usage and related factors, often considered as independent of the actual organism’s proteome. Here we put the living beings back to picture and use distortion as a metric of mutational robustness. Distortion estimates the expected severities of non-synonymous mutations measuring it by amino acid physicochemical properties and weighting for codon usage. Using the biological variance of codon frequencies, we interpret the mutational robustness of the standard genetic code with regards to their corresponding environments and genomic compositions (GC-content). Employing phylogenetic analyses, we show that coding fidelity in physicochemical properties can deteriorate with codon usages adapted to extreme environments and these putative effects are not the artefacts of phylogenetic bias. High temperature environments select for codon usages with decreased mutational robustness of hydrophobic, volumetric, and isoelectric properties. Selection at high saline concentrations also leads to reduced fidelity in polar and isoelectric patterns. These show that the genetic code performs best with mesophilic codon usages, strengthening the view that LUCA or its ancestors preferred lower temperature environments. Taxonomic implications, such as rooting the tree of life, are also discussed.

The direction the evolution of virulence takes in connection with any pathogen is a long-standing question. Formerly, it was theorized that pathogens should always evolve to be less virulent. As observations were not in line with this theoretical outcome, new theories emerged, chief among them the transmission–virulence trade-off hypotheses, which predicts an intermediate level of virulence as the endpoint of evolution. At the moment, we are very much interested in the future evolution of COVID-19’s virulence. Here, we show that the disease does not fulfill all the assumptions of the hypothesis. In the case of COVID-19, a higher viral load does not mean a higher risk of death; immunity is not long-lasting; other hosts can act as reservoirs for the virus; and death as a consequence of viral infection does not shorten the infectious period. Consequently, we cannot predict the short- or long-term evolution of the virulence of COVID-19.