Early evolution of eukaryote feeding modes, cell structural diversity, and classification of the protozoan phyla Loukozoa, Sulcozoa, and Choanozoa

Cavalier‐Smith, Thomas

doi:10.1016/j.ejop.2012.06.001

Cited by 172 publications

(208 citation statements)

References 279 publications

(436 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

200

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the proflagellar apparatus of Physarum amoebae shares similarities with the animal centrosome, the Mtoc1 playing the role of the PCM during interphase. The Mtoc1 could be an ancestral feature in Amoebozoa because similar structures are seen in distantly related species within this group [66,78]. The ancestor of all Amoebozoa possibly exhibited amoeboid stages resembling Physarum amoeboid swarm cells, in which the flagella were absent and the proflagellar apparatus, comprising a basal body complex and an Mtoc1-like structure, was acting as a centrosome.…”

Section: (A) the Amorphean Ancestormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This architecture is found across the eukaryotic tree, suggesting that all eukaryotes derived from a biflagellate ancestor assembling a complex, excavate-like flagellar apparatus. In particular, it is observed in two amorphean lineages, Amoebozoa and Apusozoa, suggesting that the last common ancestor of all Amorphea was itself an excavate-like flagellate (figure 1) [62,66]. Partial or complete loss of the ancestral flagellar apparatus then occurred several times independently in eukaryotes [62].…”

Section: (A) the Amorphean Ancestormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, centrioles and cilia are entirely missing in Filasteria and Nucleariida, which use actin-based filopodia to crawl along a substrate (figure 1) [45,51,52,55,56,63]. A possible scenario is that the last common ancestor of all Amorphea or even of all eukaryotes was capable of both flagellar and actin-based motility, and different lineages lost one or the other (or both) while adapting to their specific environment [26,27,[64][65][66]. It is thus necessary when attempting to reconstitute the evolutionary history of the microtubule cytoskeleton to consider these aspects as well.…”

Section: Evolution Of Cytoskeleton Architecture In Amorpheamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The widespread distribution of amoeboid motility among eukaryotes suggests that it originated early in their evolutionary history [64,66]. Switching between flagella-based swimming motility and actin-based gliding motility might be an ancient strategy for adapting to different environments.…”

Section: (A) the Amorphean Ancestormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exploring the evolutionary history of centrosomes

Azimzadeh

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The centrosome is the main organizer of the microtubule cytoskeleton in animals, higher fungi and several other eukaryotic lineages. Centrosomes are usually located at the centre of cell in tight association with the nuclear envelope and duplicate at each cell cycle. Despite a great structural diversity between the different types of centrosomes, they are functionally equivalent and share at least some of their molecular components. In this paper, we explore the evolutionary origin of the different centrosomes, in an attempt to understand whether they are derived from an ancestral centrosome or evolved independently from the motile apparatus of distinct flagellated ancestors. We then discuss the evolution of centrosome structure and function within the animal lineage.

show abstract

Section: (A) the Amorphean Ancestormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (A) the Amorphean Ancestormentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evolution Of Cytoskeleton Architecture In Amorpheamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (A) the Amorphean Ancestormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploring the evolutionary history of centrosomes

Azimzadeh

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thomas Cavalier-Smith étant l'un des co-auteurs de cette classification, il est assez tentant de faire correspondre ces sept règnes aux phylogénies qu'il propose [10] (Figure 3). Les noms de ces règnes sont pour la plupart connus, mais les chromistes restent souvent méconnus du grand public et même des biologistes non spécialisés.…”

Section: A B C D E F Gunclassified

Une nouvelle mégaclassification pragmatique du vivant

Aubert¹

2016

Med Sci (Paris)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protist Systematics

Lynn

2014

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protist systematics is concerned with the classification of the typically microscopic organisms found in abundance nearly everywhere in the Earth's biosphere. Such organisms include the algae, the protozoa and certain lower fungi. Protists were assigned to the taxon Protista by Haeckel. However, it wasn't until the technological innovation of the electron microscope and the repopularisation by Margulis of the theory of serial endosymbiosis to explain the origin of eukaryotes that the discipline of protistology achieved a critical mass. By the end of the twentieth century, protistologists agreed that the Protista was not a natural assemblage. Data from both the ultrastructure of the flagellar/ciliary apparatuses of diverse lineages and later gene/genome sequences confirmed this. Currently, a consensus is emerging that there are possibly three major assemblages of eukaryotes into which the majority of protists can be assigned: Adl et al. (2012) have named these the Amorphea, Excavata and Diaphoretickes. Key Concepts: Protists are typically microscopic organisms, commonly called algae, protozoa and lower fungi. The taxon Protista was established by Haeckel (1866, 1878) to include these organisms and some others, but it was not enthusiastically embraced by botanists and zoologists in the 19th Century. Up until the mid‐twentieth century, protists were classified using significant features of their cell structure, such as plastids and storage products, their body form and their modes of locomotion. One popular classification grouped them into amoebae (i.e. Sarcodina), flagellates (i.e. Mastigophora), ciliates (i.e. Ciliophora) and spore‐formers (i.e. Sporozoa) (e.g. Manwell, 1961). The technological innovation of the transmission electron microscope and the repopularisation by Margulis (1970, 1981) of the theory of serial endosymbiosis to explain the origin of eukaryotes refocussed attention on protists. In the mid‐twentieth century, even though the Kingdom Protista was gaining popularity, experts recognised that it was likely not a monophyletic group. By the late twentieth century, gene sequences of the ribosomal RNA gene and in this century, sequences of hundreds of genes confirm that the protists must be split into several different lineages, which include the animals, plants and fungi. While there is not total agreement, an emerging consensus recognises these major groups: Archaeplastida, Sar, Excavata, Amoebozoa, Opisthokonta and a number of smaller lineages whose affinities are not yet determined.

show abstract

Early evolution of eukaryote feeding modes, cell structural diversity, and classification of the protozoan phyla Loukozoa, Sulcozoa, and Choanozoa

Cited by 172 publications

References 279 publications

Exploring the evolutionary history of centrosomes

Exploring the evolutionary history of centrosomes

Une nouvelle mégaclassification pragmatique du vivant

Protist Systematics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About