Semes for analysis of evolution: de Duve's peroxisomes and Meyer's hydrogenases in the sulphurous Proterozoic eon

Margulis, Lynn; Chapman, Michael; Dolan, Michael F.

doi:10.1038/nrg2071-c1

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In figure 1, we have sketched the origin of the host lineage for the origin of mitochondria as an archaebacterium outright, because it precludes the notion that nucleated but mitochondrion-lacking cells (archezoa) ever existed (Embley & Martin 2006) in agreement with some recent analyses based on supertrees (Pisani et al 2007) and based on careful phylogenetic studies of informational genes (Cox et al 2008). Some would staunchly disagree, maintaining that there are indeed eukaryotes around that never possessed mitochondria (Margulis et al 2007), that the host that acquired the mitochondrion was a eubacterium (de Duve 2007), or that the common ancestry of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes is somehow tenuous (de Duve 2007;Margulis et al 2007). We politely disagree, and will not argue their case here.…”

Section: Warning: Many People Disagree With Some Views Expressed Herementioning

confidence: 69%

Getting a better picture of microbial evolution en route to a network of genomes

Dagan

Martin

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most current thinking about evolution is couched in the concept of trees. The notion of a tree with recursively bifurcating branches representing recurrent divergence events is a plausible metaphor to describe the evolution of multicellular organisms like vertebrates or land plants. But if we try to force the tree metaphor onto the whole of the evolutionary process, things go badly awry, because the more closely we inspect microbial genomes through the looking glass of gene and genome sequence comparisons, the smaller the amount of the data that fits the concept of a bifurcating tree becomes. That is mainly because among microbes, endosymbiosis and lateral gene transfer are important, two mechanisms of natural variation that differ from the kind of natural variation that Darwin had in mind. For such reasons, when it comes to discussing the relationships among all living things, that is, including the microbes and all of their genes rather than just one or a select few, many biologists are now beginning to talk about networks rather than trees in the context of evolutionary relationships among microbial chromosomes. But talk is not enough. If we were to actually construct networks instead of trees to describe the evolutionary process, what would they look like? Here we consider endosymbiosis and an example of a network of genomes involving 181 sequenced prokaryotes and how that squares off with some ideas about early cell evolution.

show abstract

Section: Warning: Many People Disagree With Some Views Expressed Herementioning

confidence: 69%

Getting a better picture of microbial evolution en route to a network of genomes

Dagan

Martin

2009

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their karyomastigont hypothesis, Lynn Margulis and her co-authors proposed the origin of the nucleus via the karyomastigont, which consisted of a nucleus and flagellar apparatus (Margulis, 1996;Margulis et al, 2000Margulis et al, , 2005Margulis et al, , 2006Margulis et al, , 2007. The problematic part of the karyomastigont concept is the spirochaete origin of the tubulin-based flagellum, which should be descended from putatively Mixotricha-like ectosymbionts (Margulis, 1996;Margulis et al, 2000Margulis et al, , 2006König et al, 2006;Radek and Nitsch, 2007).…”

Section: Daniel Mazia Versus Lynn Margulis: Energide-cell Body Versus Karyomastigontmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energide–cell body as smallest unit of eukaryotic life

Baluška

Lyons

2018

Annals of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nucleus of eukaryotic cells forms via its perinuclear microtubules, the primary eukaryotic unit known also as the Energide-cell body. As for all other endosymbiotic organelles, new Energides are generated only from other Energides. While the Energide cannot be generated de novo, it can use its secretory apparatus to generate de novo the cell periphery apparatus. We suggest that Virchow's tenet Omnis cellula e cellula should be updated as Omnis Energide e Energide to reflect the status of the Energide as the primary unit of the eukaryotic cell, and life. In addition, the plasma membrane provides feedback to the Energide and renders it protection via the plasma membrane-derived endosomal network. New discoveries suggest archaeal origins of both the Energide and its host cell.

show abstract

“…[33][34][35][36] They are not necessarily in direct opposition to each other, nor are they completely incompatible with direct filiation (autogenous origin) models. As with any attempt to model historical events, there is much speculation and a dearth of empirical evidence.…”

Section: Point Of Viewmentioning

confidence: 99%

The implications of centrosomal RNA

Alliegro

2008

RNA Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semes for analysis of evolution: de Duve's peroxisomes and Meyer's hydrogenases in the sulphurous Proterozoic eon

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Getting a better picture of microbial evolution en route to a network of genomes

Getting a better picture of microbial evolution en route to a network of genomes

Energide–cell body as smallest unit of eukaryotic life

The implications of centrosomal RNA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About