Origin of eukaryotes as a symbiosis of parasitic α-proteobacteria in the periplasm of two-membrane-bounded sexual prekaryotes

Vesteg, Matej; Krajčovič, Juraj

doi:10.4161/cib.1.1.6349

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, the universal tree of single-stranded rRNA clusters eukaryotes near to archaea ( Woese, 2000 ). To date, there are a number (more than 20) different models to explain the origin of eukaryotic cells ( Martin and Muller, 1998 ; Martin, 2005 ; Martin and Koonin 2006 ; Moreira and Lopez-Garcia, 1998 ; Vesteg and Krajcovic, 2006 ; Forterre, 2011 ; Baum and Baum, 2014 ). The majority of these models are based on the merger of two prokaryotes to form ancient eukaryotic cells.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A statistical anomaly indicates symbiotic origins of eukaryotic membranes

Bansal

Mittal

2015

MBoC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A statistical anomaly indicates symbiotic origins of eukaryotic membranes

Bansal

Mittal

2015

MBoC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All eukaryotic cells contain a functional mitochondrion or a non-oxidative derivative organelle [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Thus, the ancestral eukaryote must have acquired an endosymbiotic mitochondrial precursor, and molecular phylogenetics unambiguously identified the mitochondrion as belonging to the Alpha-proteobacteria group [ 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Similarly, photosynthetic eukaryotes, including red and green algae and plants, have chloroplasts, and molecular phylogenetics identified the chloroplast as a member of the cyanobacteria [ 43 , 44 , 45 ].…”

Section: Eukaryotic Origins and Major Eukaryotic Taxonomic Originamentioning

confidence: 99%

Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in the Light of Genomics: Read–Write Genome Evolution as an Active Biological Process

Shapiro

2016

Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 21st century genomics-based analysis of evolutionary variation reveals a number of novel features impossible to predict when Dobzhansky and other evolutionary biologists formulated the neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis in the middle of the last century. These include three distinct realms of cell evolution; symbiogenetic fusions forming eukaryotic cells with multiple genome compartments; horizontal organelle, virus and DNA transfers; functional organization of proteins as systems of interacting domains subject to rapid evolution by exon shuffling and exonization; distributed genome networks integrated by mobile repetitive regulatory signals; and regulation of multicellular development by non-coding lncRNAs containing repetitive sequence components. Rather than single gene traits, all phenotypes involve coordinated activity by multiple interacting cell molecules. Genomes contain abundant and functional repetitive components in addition to the unique coding sequences envisaged in the early days of molecular biology. Combinatorial coding, plus the biochemical abilities cells possess to rearrange DNA molecules, constitute a powerful toolbox for adaptive genome rewriting. That is, cells possess “Read–Write Genomes” they alter by numerous biochemical processes capable of rapidly restructuring cellular DNA molecules. Rather than viewing genome evolution as a series of accidental modifications, we can now study it as a complex biological process of active self-modification.

show abstract

“…These primitive life forms apparently possessed well-organized molecular structures called LACA (last archaeal common ancestor) and could have been given in an environment in the absence of oxygen, hyperthermophilic and later thermophilic, which is compatible with the conditions of the planet during that time. There is not a well-defined moment for the appearance of LACA, it is even suggested that it could have been the same LUCA (last universal common ancestor), or it could have originated from eukaryotic cells (Boussau et al, 2008;Glansdorff et al, 2009;Vesteg and Krajcovic, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%