Back

Insertions in universal proteins confirm that Nanohaloarchaea belong to DPANN-Archaea and suggest several new major archaeal clades.

Forterre, P.; Schmitt, E.; Da Cunha, V.

2026-06-17 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.06.17.729505 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The phylogenetic position of Nanohaloarchaea has been debated, these nanosized archaea being alternatively proposed as sister group to Haloarchaea, members of the DPANN-Archaea, or sister group to Methanocellales. Screening a set of universal proteins, we identified four insertions located at critical locations in three ribosomal proteins and one RNA polymerase subunit that support the branching of Nanohaloarchaea as sister group to Aenigmarchaea within DPANN cluster II (sensu Dombrowski et al., 2020). Insertion analyses and phylogeny of the monomeric primase specific to DPANN-Archaea confirm the existence of a robust clade grouping Undinarchaea, Naiadarchaea and DPANN cluster II, that we propose to call Nanostetteria. Our insertion analysis also supports including Altiarchaea within DPANN-Archaea and suggest a new clades that has not been recovered in phylogenetic analyses, one grouping DPANN-Archaea with Stygia (Hadarchaea and relative) and an even large one grouping these lineages with Acherontia (Thermococci and relatives). The insertion defining this larger clade, present in the ribosomal protein uS7, is also present at the same position in Thaumarchaea, Korarchaea and a subgroup of Asgardarchaea. Whereas the insertion in Thaumarchaea is certainly due to an independent event, we discuss alternative hypotheses that can explain those present in Korarchaea and Asgardarchaea. Finally, we noticed several cases of MAGs misannotations, indicating that insertion analysis can be useful to identify protein with misleading affiliations. The existence of insertions in otherwise highly conserved universal proteins involved in translation or transcription could partly explain the high rate of protein evolution in some archaeal lineage, especially in DPANN-Archaea.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
44.8%
2
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 1%
7.7%
50% of probability mass above
3
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.1%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 30%
3.4%
5
MicrobiologyOpen
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
6
mBio
833 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.1%
7
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
8
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
9
RNA
189 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
10
ISME Communications
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
11
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
12
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
13
Environmental Microbiology
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
14
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.0%
15
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 38%
1.0%
16
Genes
144 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
17
Environmental Microbiology Reports
31 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
18
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
The ISME Journal
228 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
21
Biology Direct
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.6%
22
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
339 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%
23
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 66%
0.6%