On the nature of the earliest known lifeforms

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Microfossils from the Paleoarchean Eon represent the oldest evidence of life, but their nature has been strongly debated among scientists. To resolve this, the authors reconstructed the lifecycles of Archaean organisms by transforming a Gram-positive bacterium into a primitive lipid vesicle-like state and simulating early Earth conditions. They successfully replicated all morphologies and life cycles of Archaean microfossils and studied cell degradation processes over several years, finding that encrustation with minerals like salt preserved these cells as fossilized organic carbon. Their findings suggest that microfossils from 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago were likely liposome-like protocells with energy conservation pathways but without regulated morphology.

Strengths:

The authors have crafted a compelling narrative about the morphological similarities between microfossils from various sites and proliferating wall-deficient bacterial cells, providing detailed comparisons that have never been demonstrated in this detail before. The extensive number of supporting figures is impressive, highlighting numerous similarities. While conclusively proving that these microfossils are proliferating protocells morphologically akin to those studied here is challenging, we applaud this effort as the first detailed comparison between microfossils and morphologically primitive cells.

Weaknesses:

Although the species used in this study closely resembles the fossils morphologically, it would be beneficial to provide a clearer explanation for its selection. The literature indicates that many bacteria, if not all, can be rendered cell wall-deficient, making the rationale for choosing this specific species somewhat unclear.

While this manuscript includes clear morphological comparisons, we believe the authors do not adequately address the limitations of using modern bacterial species in their study. All contemporary bacteria have undergone extensive evolutionary changes, developing complex and intertwined genetic pathways unlike those of early life forms. Consequently, comparing existing bacteria with fossilized life forms is largely hypothetical, a point that should be more thoroughly emphasized in the discussion.

Another weak aspect of the study is the absence of any quantitative data. While we understand that obtaining such data for microfossils may be challenging, it would be helpful to present the frequencies of different proliferative events observed in the bacterium used. Additionally, reflecting on the chemical factors in early life that might cause these distinct proliferation modes would provide valuable context.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In summary, the manuscript describes life-cycle-related morphologies of primitive vesicle-like states (Em-P) produced in the laboratory from the Gram-positive bacterium Exiguobacterium Strain-Molly) under assumed Archean environmental conditions. Em-P morphologies (life cycles) are controlled by the "native environment". In order to mimic Archean environmental conditions, soy broth supplemented with Dead Sea salt was used to cultivate Em-Ps. The manuscript compares Archean microfossils and biofilms from selected photos with those laboratory morphologies. The photos derive from publications on various stratigraphic sections of Paleo- to Neoarchean ages. Based on the similarity of morphologies of microfossils and Em-Ps, the manuscript concludes that all Archean microfossils are in fact not prokaryotes, but merely "sacks of cytoplasm".

Strengths:

The approach of the authors to recognize the possibility that "real" cells were not around in the Archean time is appealing. The manuscript reflects the very hard work by the authors composing the Em-Ps used for comparison and selecting the appropriate photo material of fossils.

Weaknesses:

While the basic idea is very interesting, the manuscript includes flaws and falls short in presenting supportive data. The manuscript makes too simplistic assumptions on the "Archean paleoenvironment". First, like in our modern world, the environmental conditions during the Archean time were not globally the same. Second, we do not know much about the Archean paleoenvironment due to the immense lack of rock records. More so, the Archean stratigraphic sections from where the fossil material derived record different paleoenvironments: shelf to tidal flat and lacustrine settings, so differences must have been significant. Finally, the Archean spanned 2.500 billion years and it is unlikely that environmental conditions remained the same. Diurnal or seasonal variations are not considered. Sediment types are not considered. Due to these reasons, the laboratory model of an Archean paleoenvironment and the life therein is too simplistic. Another aspect is that eucaryote cells are described from Archean rocks, so it seems unlikely that prokaryotes were not around at the same time. Considering other fossil evidence preserved in Archean rocks except for microfossils, the many early Archean microbialites that show baffling and trapping cannot be explained without the presence of "real cells". With respect to lithology: chert is a rock predominantly composed of silica, not salt. The formation of Em-Ps in the "salty" laboratory set-up seems therefore not a good fit to evaluate chert fossils. Formation of structures in sediment is one step. The second step is their preservation. However, the second aspect of taphonomy is largely excluded in the manuscript, and the role of fossilization (lithification) of Em-Ps is not discussed. This is important because Archean rock successions are known for their tectonic and hydrothermal overprint, as well as recrystallization over time. Some of the comparisons of laboratory morphologies with fossil microfossils and biofilms are incorrect because scales differ by magnitudes. In general, one has to recognize that prokaryote cell morphologies do not offer many variations. It is possible to arrive at the morphologies described in various ways including abiotic ones.