2017
DOI: 10.21685/1680-0826-2017-11-4-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Kinetid structure of choanoflagellates and choanocytes of sponges does not support their close relationship

Abstract: SummaryAny discussion of the origin of Metazoa during the last 150 years and particularly in the recent years when the sister relationship of choanoflagellates and Metazoa was unambiguously shown by molecular phylogeny refers to the similarity of sponge choanocytes to choanoflagellates. These two types of collared radially symmetric cells are superficially similar with respect to the presence of microvilli around a single flagellum and flat mitochondrial cristae which are common for many eukaryotes. But a comp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
31
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
5
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In conclusion, our analysis of sponge and unicellular holozoan cell transcriptomes, development and behaviour provides no support for the long-standing and widely-held hypothesis that multicellular animals evolved from an ancestor that was an undifferentiated ball of cells resembling extant choanocytes and choanoflagellates 14 . This conclusion is corroborated by recent studies that question the homology of choanocytes and choanoflagellates based on cell structure 27,28 . As an alternative, we posit that the ancestral metazoan cell type, regardless of its external character, had the capacity to exist in, and transition between, multiple cell states in a manner similar to modern transdifferentiating and stem cells.…”
Section: Mainsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…In conclusion, our analysis of sponge and unicellular holozoan cell transcriptomes, development and behaviour provides no support for the long-standing and widely-held hypothesis that multicellular animals evolved from an ancestor that was an undifferentiated ball of cells resembling extant choanocytes and choanoflagellates 14 . This conclusion is corroborated by recent studies that question the homology of choanocytes and choanoflagellates based on cell structure 27,28 . As an alternative, we posit that the ancestral metazoan cell type, regardless of its external character, had the capacity to exist in, and transition between, multiple cell states in a manner similar to modern transdifferentiating and stem cells.…”
Section: Mainsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…There are, however, some basic differences between sponges and choanoflagellates in how their collar and flagella interact, suggesting that choanocyte/choanoflagellate similarity might be superficial and that specific homology cannot be automatically assumed (see [71] for details). Indeed, recent ultrastructural studies on sponge choanocytes and choanoflagellates show that they are fundamentally different in many respects (see [72][73][74] for details), some of which are among the very few ultrastructural systems in eukaryotic cells considered sufficiently conservative to indicate phylogenetic relationships [75][76][77]. For example, specific features of the flagellar apparatus of the sponge Ephydatia fluviatilis are more similar to zoospores of chytrids than to choanoflagellates [78].…”
Section: Origins Of Multicellularitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, specific features of the flagellar apparatus of the sponge Ephydatia fluviatilis are more similar to zoospores of chytrids than to choanoflagellates [78]. Overall, the conclusion that sponges (and by extension all Metazoa) descend directly from a single-celled organism similar to choanoflagellates is not unambiguously supported by ultrastructure, as sometimes assumed [73].…”
Section: Origins Of Multicellularitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another important source of information for phylogenies is the organization of the kinetids (flagellar apparatus). It has been suggested that the ultrastructure of the kinetids is useful for the phylogeny of Porifera (Pozdnyakov & Karpov, ; Pozdnyakov, Sokolova, Ereskovsky, & Karpov, , ). Conversely, we now believe that the general organization and architecture of the aquiferous system observed in previous investigations and in this work (summarized in Table ) do not corroborate the idea that these characteristics are useful to understand/construct the phylogeny of Haplosclerida.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%