Date: 17/09/2019 05:50:24
From: dv
ID: 1437008
Subject: We are Archaea

To start, a quick review of some historical systems of top-level taxonomy.

Carl Linnaeus issued various models in the 18th century, but all of them divided the biological world into plants and animals. Some of his calls with regard to splitting up algae appear to have been somewhat arbitrary.

Ernst Haeckel was among the first to try to incorporate unicellular forms into the Tree of Life in a systematic way (1866). As he did not have access to electron microscopes and RNA/DNA had not been discovered, he relied on the form and function that could be seen with the naked eye or with an optical microscope, and there were some errors. He included the fungi with the plants, and anything unicellular was put in one basket, called Protista.

The advent of the electron microscope gave insight into cellular structure that allowed the distinction to be made between forms without a cell nucleus and those with a cell nucleus. Unicellular eukaryotes (ie life forms with a cell nucleus), he kept in Protista, but he moved those without a cell nucleus into a new kingdom called Monera.

At this time, the only members of what we now call Archaea were called Methobacteria, and were considered to be just a weird clade of Bacteria. As the decades passed, more life forms of this type were found, mostly extremophiles of one kind or another, and so they were put in a major group called Archaebacteria (still part of Bacteria).

In the 1960s, Fungi were moved into a separate Kingdom, mostly on the basis of their separate form of nutrition.

By the 1970s, improved techniques allowed directly comparison of genetic sequences. Woese showed that the “archaebacteria” were not Bacteria at all: they had very different RNA sequences, and diverged very early from Bacteria. They were rebadged as Archaea. Further, he showed that Archaea were much closer to Eukaryotes than they were to Bacteria. By the late 1990s, the Three Domain model was well established. The term Kingdom was still applied to Animalia, Plantae etc but the Kingdom was a lower level than the Domain. By that stage, many more kinds of Archaea had been discovered, and it was known they were not just in extreme environments: they were in human intestines, in peat bogs, in soil, on plant roots, everywhere. Other functional similarities were found between Eukaryota and Archaea: for instance they have multiple RNA polymerases, whereas Bacteria have but one.

As you can see, the Woese Three Kingdom’s model, which probably remains the most widely accepted, shows Eukaryota and Archaea as two separate, monophyletic clades. It is often said that Eukaryota diverged because of horizontal gene transfer from some kind of Bacteria, or perhaps via Viral Eukaryogenesis. Creation of a cellular nucleus involved a major structural change, and it would seem that most authors reject the idea that it could happen through “normal” mutation-driven evolution.

In the last few years, some studies have challenged the W3K model. Like previous challenges to phylogenic models, this has partly been driven my new information arising from technological change: specifically, the ability to perform massive phylogenomic studies involving dozens or hundreds of subjects in a reasonable time period.

The 2015 Spang et Al paper below, “Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes”, for instance, found that Eukaryota and a small clade of Archaea called the Lokiarchaeota were together monophyletic: that is to say, Eukaryota is more closely related to Lokiarchaeota than to other kinds of Archaea.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4444528/

From the standpoint of pure cladistics, this would place all Eukaryota (all plants, animals, fungi, amoebas etc) squarely within the domain Archaea, meaning we are back to a Two Domain system.

Two caveats:
1/ Eukaryota’s relationship to Archaea remains a hot topic so more studies might bring alternative explanations for Spang et al’s results.
2/ Horizontal gene transfer is a bit of a challenge for pure cladistics anyway. Within Eukaryota, things are fairly straightforward: every cell was formed by mitosis or meiosis or fusion between two cells closely related forms. It’s a messier story if a cell has genetic information sourced from two different Domains.

Reply Quote

Date: 17/09/2019 06:06:25
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1437011
Subject: re: We are Archaea

dv said:


In the 1960s, Fungi were moved into a separate Kingdom, mostly on the basis of their separate form of nutrition.


Yep

dv said:


By the 1970s, improved techniques allowed directly comparison of genetic sequences. Woese showed that the “archaebacteria” were not Bacteria at all: they had very different RNA sequences, and diverged very early from Bacteria. They were rebadged as Archaea. Many more kinds of Archaea had been discovered, and it was known they were not just in extreme environments: they were in human intestines, in peat bogs, in soil, on plant roots, everywhere.

Yep

dv said:


Further, he showed that Archaea were much closer to Eukaryotes than they were to Bacteria. Other functional similarities were found between Eukaryota and Archaea: for instance they have multiple RNA polymerases, whereas Bacteria have but one.

Nope

Eukaryotes are much more closely related to Bacteria than Archaea, in every analysis I’ve seen. Unless the whole landscape has changed since last time I looked.

Reply Quote

Date: 17/09/2019 09:25:07
From: dv
ID: 1437035
Subject: re: We are Archaea

mollwollfumble said:

Eukaryotes are much more closely related to Bacteria than Archaea, in every analysis I’ve seen. Unless the whole landscape has changed since last time I looked.

Nah man. They branched Archaea with Eukaryota since the mid-90s.

Reply Quote

Date: 17/09/2019 10:36:08
From: PermeateFree
ID: 1437045
Subject: re: We are Archaea

It is a good example of how large and complicated nature is and how simplistic the term Animal, Vegetable or Mineral was, but generally accepted as the extent of classification. Don’t think we have heard the last of this discussion for some time.

Reply Quote

Date: 17/09/2019 12:16:38
From: Dropbear
ID: 1437067
Subject: re: We are Archaea

LIFE. The Ancients knew.

Reply Quote

Date: 17/09/2019 13:23:55
From: Ian
ID: 1437087
Subject: re: We are Archaea

Could we go back to one domain and start again?

Reply Quote

Date: 18/09/2019 04:36:27
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 1437409
Subject: re: We are Archaea

dv said:


mollwollfumble said:

Eukaryotes are much more closely related to Bacteria than Archaea, in every analysis I’ve seen. Unless the whole landscape has changed since last time I looked.

Nah man. They branched Archaea with Eukaryota since the mid-90s.

Ooh ahh. I am out of date. Last time i looked, they were making an attempt to find LUCA and were throwing their hands up in despair at the difficulty. So Archaea evolved from Bacteria rather than the other way around, they are not “ancient” at all. (TIC, Archaea should be renamed Neoa). From following image – two different slime mold lineages? I’m familiar with Microspora, but not Archaezoa.

Ahh. I see, It’s a question of where you root the tree. I’m more familiar with this sort of chart, note that it is rootless.

The following is a different Interpretation. From Aug 29, 2018. https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/evolution-of-the-three-domains-of-life-the-archaea-first-hypothesis/

In that scheme, Eukaryotes evolved from Bacteria but, after splitting, both Eukaryotes and Bacteria swapped genetic material with two different strains of Archaea. Eukaryotes most recently.

Looking up “archaezoa” on Wikipedia. I see that it disagrees with its ancientness. According to wikipedia, the archaezoa are the sum of the Microspora and Metamonads . Oh I see, Giardia, I have heard of Giardia. Of the Metamonads it says “These flagellates lack mitochondria. Originally they were considered among the most primitive eukaryotes, diverging from the others before mitochondria appeared. However, they are now known to have lost mitochondria secondarily, and retain both organelles and nuclear genes derived from them. Mitochondrial relics include hydrogenosomes, which produce hydrogen, and small structures called mitosomes. It now appears the Metamonada are sister clades of the Podiata.” So not ancient at all – or are they?

Reply Quote