Skip to main content

On the propagation of a conceptual error concerning hypercycles and cooperation


The hypercycle is a system of replicators, whose members are auto- and cross-catalytic: replication of each member is catalyzed by at least one other member of the system. Therefore, the kinetics of growth of every member is at least second order. In ecology such systems are called mutualistic whose members are cooperating with each other. The dynamics of such systems are described broadly by the replicator equation. In chemistry hypercycles are often confused with collectively autocatalytic systems in which the members catalyze each other’s formation rather than replication (growth being therefore first-order). Examples of this confusion abound in the literature. The trouble is that such category errors mistakenly imply that the available theories of hypercycles and cooperation are applicable, although in fact they are not. Cooperation in population biology means a higher-order interaction among agents with (at least the capacity of) multiplication. From the point of evolution, what matters is the genetic effects on the cooperative act. As systems chemistry has one of its roots in the theoretical biology, insights from this field ought to be respected even by experimentalists, let alone theoreticians.


The molecular hypercycle as proposed by Eigen [1] and elaborated by Eigen and Schuster [2] is a system in which autocatalytic replicators also heterocatalytically aid each other’s replication so that replication of each member is catalyzed by at least one other member. If we have two replicators then the simplest stoichiometric scheme is:

I 1 + I 2 + R 1 k 1 2 I 1 + I 2
I 2 + I 1 + R 2 k 2 2 I 2 + I 1 ,

where I i are the replicators and R i are the adequate resources, of which the dynamics is usually neglected, by absorbing their concentrations into the rate constants k i . It is readily obvious that the kinetic equations crucially include growth terms involving k i [I i ][I j ], hence the term second-order autocatalysis. Apart from the relevance (or not) of such systems in early molecular evolution, they have triggered considerable, respectable mathematical work. It has been realized that the kinetic model of the hypercycle can be regarded as a special case of the replicator equation, of which the other special cases include Lotka-Volterra systems (needing a barycentric transformation), Fisher-type genetic selection and evolutionary game dynamics [3]. One has to pay special attention to the issue of cooperation here. The hypercycle is an example of molecular mutualists from an ecological point of view: it is analogous to the case in which Species 1 helps the reproduction of Species 2 that helps the reproduction of Species 1. (Similar cases can be defined within species). The hypercycle idea is so clear and simple that it seems impossible to misunderstand it. Yet, very unfortunately, chemists excel in such misunderstanding. One might say that this is semantic quibble, but it is not, for the following reason. IF one thinks that one is dealing with a cooperative/hypercyclic system, THEN one readily assumes that the THEORY developed for such systems [3] is applicable. Thus if one makes a category error of this kind, adverse consequences follow. To put it bluntly, one does not know what one is talking about.


Let us see the examples. The first case when I saw this happen was in two papers in which coupled cyclic biochemical systems were treated and called hypercycles, although the case did not include a single replicator or autocatalysis of any kind [4, 5]. I analyzed the case shortly afterwards under the title “a hypercyclic illusion” [6], naively thinking that the issue will be put to rest. Not so. The next case is the collectively autocatalytic peptide sets of Ghadiri [7], where the paper had “emergence of symbiosis” in its title, on the assumption that the authors had produced a hypercyclic network. In its simplest form we are dealing with a system that looks like this:

I 2 + R 1 k 1 I 1 + I 2
I 1 + R 2 k 2 I 2 + I 1 .

It should be obvious that I1 catalysis the formation rather than the replication of I2 and vice versa. This is not a hypercycle, neither a case of cooperation as defined in the classical theory [8] of evolutionary biology. It is (importantly) a case of a collectively autocatalytic set to which Stu Kauffman [9] has paid special attention throughout the years. Such sets have been realized, emphatically without a conceptual flow in interpretation, by von Kiedrowski [10, 11]. Note that in system (3–4) I1 and I2 are not replicators, only the set {I1, I2} can be regarded as an ensemble replicator [12]. Fortunately, the claim about such systems being hypercyclic has been withdrawn [13], but unfortunately many people have not taken notice: Table 1 presents examples of spectacular conceptual error propagation. The latest similar case is that of a collectively autocatalytic set of RNA ligases [14], for which even the associated News and Views [15] regarded the presented system hypercyclic. This is completely wrong I am afraid, for the reasons explained above. (Note that some of the ligases involved can directly be autocatalytic, but these reactions run in parallel to the formation aided by cross-catalysis.) Unfortunately, similar errors can propagate into literature meant to inform the wider public about key developments in evolution [16].

Table 1 Quotes confusing cross-catalysis with hypercyclic coupling

In order to help the reader feel in another way the magnitude of the error, I daresay the cited mistakes reach the level of confusing momentum (mv) with kinetic energy (mv2/2) in mechanics: the first expression is linear, while the second is quadratic in velocity. There are different theorems for momentum and energy which cannot be confused, even though they are related in the sense that both are dealing with motion.

Finally, I present a case where again the system has been called a hypercycle without hypercyclic coupling. Curiously, a predator–prey like interaction is involved, however (Figure 1). This is an interesting system that has been presented as a possible solution of the problem of early RNA replication [24]. In brief, a polymerase helps the replication of RNA oligomers and a ligase helps the formation of itself as well as of the replicase out of these oligomers. This system is exciting, but what is it from the point of view of ecological/evolutionary interactions, if it is not hypercyclic? Figure 1 attempts to give an answer. The closest (but still limited) analogy I can think of is that of two tropic levels and sterile and worker castes in a social insect. The sterile caste does the farming of fungi on which the larvae feed whose fate to become sterile or fertile depends on diet. (I can assure fellow systems chemists that such cases exist). Again, the system is collectively autocatalytic but there is no direct mutual catalysis of replication (but there are other interactions usually not considered in the theory of autocatalytic sets). Polymerase helps the replication of the oligomers but the latter contribute stoichiometrically rather than catalytically to the formation of polymerase and the autocatalysis of the ligase. A crucial difference between the two systems is that, in contrast to the social insect case, polymerase and ligase are not genetically related, so the polymerase does not forgo its own direct replication by kin selection [25] to aid the replication of the ligase by producing food. Apart from this, is there molecular cooperation here in a biologically meaningful sense, or not? I think there isn’t. First, with just the right food and ligase around, the polymerase will emerge: the latter is not a template, neither an informational replicator. Second, although it is true that P has a positive kinetic effect on itself as well as on L, but P, despite being a nucleic acid, is more analogous to protein enzymes (catalyzing metabolism) than genes. If metabolism is an autocatalytic network [25], then the analogy is very close. Metabolites are necessary for the replication of the genes and the formation of enzymes, catalysed by the genes. From a purely formalistic view [26] it is true that every catalyst contributing to the growth of a cell is an autocatalyst in the broad sense (it feeds back positively on its own growth), but the evolution of cooperation is a question related to the genetic/informational effects on the cooperative act [8, 25]. Whereas it is meaningful to speak about genes cooperating in a cell, it is not revealing from the point of view of information and evolution to say that enzymes cooperate with genes, unless enzymes can informationally influence the spread of their variants, somehow transcending the genetic effects of the genes.

Figure 1
figure 1

A non-hypercyclic molecular network [24]with multiple ’trophic levels’ ( top ) and a possible biological analogue ( bottom ). P1 and P2: replicating oligomers as building blocks of polymerase P. L1 and L2: replicating oligomers as building blocks of ligase L.


Systems chemistry has one of its intellectual roots in theoretical/evolutionary biology. Although this conceptually remarkably clear field has contributed to systems chemistry a lot [25], some chemists, mostly but not exclusively on the experimental side have proven to be surprisingly refractory to conceptual clarity. Experimental results are not in the void and, contrary to naïve presuppositions, they do not “speak for themselves”: they are interpreted within a hypothetico-deductive framework. Attention should thus be given to conceptual issues, since category errors trigger one to look for supporting theory in the wrong file. Collectively autocatalytic systems without (at least) second-order catalysis have not much to do with hypercycles or cooperation sensu evolutionary biology beyond a vague resemblance on the grounds of a network and autocatalysis being involved. In particular, the importance of the genetic (informational) effect on the supposedly cooperative act is often overlooked. As in every field of science, we should aim at conceptual clarity also in systems chemistry. The sooner this happens, the better.


  1. Eigen M: Self-organization of matter and the evolution of biological macromolecules. Naturwissenschaften 1971, 58: 465–523. 10.1007/BF00623322

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eigen M, Schuster P: The hypercycle: A principle of natural self-organization. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1979.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K: The theory of evolution and dynamical systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ricard J, Noat G: Electrostatic effects and the dynamics of enzyme reactions at the surface of plant cells 1. A theory of the ionic control of a complex multi-enzyme system. Eur J Biochem 1986, 155: 183–190. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1986.tb09475.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ricard J: Dynamics of multi-enzyme reactions, cell growth and perception of ionic signals from the external milieu. J Theor Biol 1987, 128: 253–278. 10.1016/S0022-5193(87)80070-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Szathmáry E: A hypercyclic illusion. J Theor Biol 1988, 134: 561–563. 10.1016/S0022-5193(88)80057-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, Ghadiri MR: Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature 1997, 390: 591–594. 10.1038/37569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nowak MA: Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Equations of Life. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kauffman S: Autocatalytic sets of proteins. J Theor Biol 1986, 119: 1–24. 10.1016/S0022-5193(86)80047-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sievers D, von Kiedrowski G: Self-replication of complementary nucleotide-based oligomers. Nature 1994, 369: 221–224. 10.1038/369221a0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sievers D, von Kiedrowski G: Self-replication of hexadeoxynucleotide analogues: autocatalysis versus cross-catalysis. Chem Eur J 1998, 4: 629–641. 10.1002/(SICI)1521-3765(19980416)4:4<629::AID-CHEM629>3.0.CO;2-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Szathmáry E: Evolution of replicators. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 2000, 355: 1669–1676. 10.1098/rstb.2000.0730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee DH, Severin K, Yokobayashi Y, Ghadiri MR: Corrections: Emergence of symbiosis in peptide self-replication through a hypercyclic network. Nature 1998, 394: 101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Vaidya N, Manapat M, Chen IA, Xulvi-Brunet R, Hayden EJ, Lehman N: Spontaneous network formation among cooperative RNA replicators. Nature 2012, 491: 72–77. 10.1038/nature11549

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Attwater J, Holliger P: The cooperative gene. Nature 2012, 491: 48–49. 10.1038/nature11635

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ellington AD: Origins for everyone. Evo Edu Outreach 2012, 5: 361–366. 10.1007/s12052-012-0440-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greenwald J, Reik R: On the possible amyloid origin of protein folds. J Mol Biol 2012, 421: 417–426. 10.1016/j.jmb.2012.04.015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellington AD: Back to the future of nucleic acid self-amplification. Nat Chem Biol 2009, 5: 200–201. 10.1038/nchembio0409-200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cousins GRL, Poulsen SA, Sanders JKM: Molecular evolution: dynamic combinatorial libraries, autocatalytic networks and the quest for molecular function. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2000, 4: 270–279. 10.1016/S1367-5931(00)00088-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Beutel KM, Peacock-López E: Complex dynamics in a cross-catalytic self-replication mechanism. J Chem Phys 2007, 126: 125104. 10.1063/1.2716396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Li X, Chmielewski J: Challenges in the design of self replicating peptides. Org Biomol Chem 2003, 1: 901–904. 10.1039/b300738c

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Issac R, Ham YW, Chmielewski J: The design of self-replicating helical peptides. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2001, 11: 458–463. 10.1016/S0959-440X(00)00233-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kauffman S, Ellington AD: Thinking combinatorially. Curr Opin Chem Biol 1999, 3: 256–259. 10.1016/S1367-5931(99)80040-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Meyer AJ, Ellefson JW, Ellington AD: Abiotic self-replication. Acc Chem Res 2012, 45: 2097–2105. 10.1021/ar200325v

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E: The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: Freeman; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zachar I, Szathmáry E: A New Replicator: A theoretical framework for analysing replication. BMC Biol 2010, 8: 21. 10.1186/1741-7007-8-21

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Financial support has been provided by the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/20072013)/ ERC grant agreement no [294332], EvoEvo project, and the Hungarian National Office for Research and Technology (NAP 2005/KCKHA005). Comments by Dr. Mauro Santos are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eörs Szathmáry.

Additional information

Competing interests

The author has no competing interests.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szathmáry, E. On the propagation of a conceptual error concerning hypercycles and cooperation. J Syst Chem 4, 1 (2013).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: