ArticleeLife2026
On the nature of the earliest known lifeforms.
Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aspects of plant intelligence (ii).Plant signaling & behavior · 2026Review
- On the nature of the earliest known lifeforms.eLife · 2026Article
- Mimicking early life-forms in the lab.eLife · 2025Article
- What the earliest evidence for life tells us about the early evolution of the biosphere.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Endocytosis-like DNA uptake by cell wall-deficient bacteria.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Dolomitic Microfossil Preservation in a Cryogenian Microbial Reef, Arkaroola (South Australia).GeobiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microfossils from the Paleoarchean Eon are the oldest known evidence of life. Despite their significance in understanding the history of life on Earth, any interpretation of the nature of these microfossils has been a point of contention among researchers. Decades of back-and-forth arguments led to the consensus that reconstructing the lifecycles of Archaean Eon organisms is the most promising way of understanding the nature of these microfossils. Here, we transformed a Gram-positive bacterium into a primitive lipid vesicle-like state and studied it under environmental conditions prevalent on early Earth. Using this approach, we successfully reconstructed morphologies and life cycles of Archaean microfossils. In addition to reproducing microfossil morphologies, we conducted experiments that spanned years to understand the process of cell degradation and how Archaean cells could have undergone encrustation of minerals (in this case, salt), leading to their preservation as fossilized organic carbon in the rock record. These degradation products strongly resemble fossiliferous features from Archaean rock formations. Our observations suggest that microfossils aged between 3.8-2.5 Ga most likely were liposome-like protocells that have evolved physiological pathways of energy conservation but not the mechanisms to regulate their morphology. Based on these observations, we propose that morphology is not a reliable indicator of taxonomy in these microfossils.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.