Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology

The eocyte hypothesis and the origin of eukaryotic cells

John M. Archibald
PNAS December 23, 2008 105 (51) 20049-20050; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0811118106
John M. Archibald
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In the June 1984 issue of PNAS, James Lake and colleagues (1) published a provocative article in which they proposed that eukaryotes (animals, fungi, plants, and protists) evolved from a specific group of thermophilic prokaryotes, the “eocyte” archaebacteria (,1). Few questions capture the imagination of biologists like the origin of eukaryotic (nucleus-containing) cells such as our own, and as additional support accumulated (e.g., refs. ,2–,4) Lake's eocyte hypothesis garnered considerable attention. The idea that eukaryotes could have arisen from within an already diversified archaebacterial lineage was eventually overshadowed by Woese's (,5) “three-domains” view of life in which archaebacteria (including eocytes) represent a natural (i.e., monophyletic) group to the exclusion of eukaryotes and eubacteria (,5). In this issue of PNAS, Cox et al. (6) revisit the possibility of an archaebacterial origin for eukaryotes by using expanded molecular sequence datasets and ultra-modern phylogenetic approaches. Their analyses are a model of rigor and rekindle interesting and important ideas about the prokaryotic antecedents of eukaryotic cells.

Evolving Views on the Tree of Life

Next to life itself, the origin of complex cells is one of the most fundamental, and intractable, problems in evolutionary biology. Progress in this area relies heavily on an understanding of the relationships between present-day organisms, yet despite tremendous advances over the last half-century scientists remain firmly divided on how to best classify cellular life. Many adhere to the textbook concept of 2 basic types of cells, prokaryotes and eukaryotes, as championed by Stanier and van Niel (7). Others posit that at its deepest level life is not a dichotomy but a trichotomy comprised of cells belonging to the domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya, each monophyletic and sufficiently distinct from one another to warrant equal status (,5, ,8). The conceptual and practical challenges associated with establishing a genealogy-based classification scheme for microbes have been fiercely debated for decades (see ref. ,9 for recent review), and the literature is rich in philosophy and rhetoric.

The genomics revolution of the 1990s brought tremendous optimism to the field of microbial systematics: if enough genomes from diverse organisms could be sequenced and compared, definitive answers to questions about evolutionary relationships within and between eubacteria, archaebacteria, and eukaryotes would surely emerge. More specifically, it should be possible to discern how eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes (if indeed that is what happened), and perhaps even who among modern-day prokaryotic lineages is our closest ancestor. Unfortunately, with the sequences of hundreds of eubacterial, archaebacterial, and eukaryotic genomes has come the realization that the number of universally distributed genes suitable for global phylogenetic analysis is frustratingly small (10). Lateral (or horizontal) gene transfer has shown itself to be a pervasive force in the evolution of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes, and even if a “core” set of genes can be identified (and there is much debate on this issue), how confident are we that the phylogenetic signal in these genes reflects the vertical history of cells? How meaningful are sequence alignment-independent, gene content-based approaches to resolving the “tree of life” (,11)? To what extent is a “net of life” a more accurate and useful metaphor for describing the full spectrum of life on Earth (,10, ,12–,14)?

Cox et al. revisit the possibility of an archaebacterial origin for eukaryotes.

These vexing questions aside, it is important to consider what analyses of universally distributed genes have, and have not, revealed about the relationships between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The advent of rRNA gene sequencing led to a revolution in microbiology with the discovery of the third domain of life, the archaebacteria (15), but rRNA phylogenies do not in and of themselves unambiguously support the monophyly of the group. Some analyses in fact place the crenarchaeotes [Lake's eocytes (,1)] as the sister group of eukaryotes to the exclusion of the other main archaebacterial line, the euryarchaeotes (e.g., refs. ,2 and ,4). Similarly, although analyses of anciently diverged paralogs such as genes encoding translation elongation factors often [but not always (,16)] place the root of the tree of life on the branch leading to eubacteria, they are equivocal as to whether archaebacteria are monophyletic or whether crenarchaeotes are adjacent to eukaryotes (e.g., refs. ,17 and ,18). A striking 11-aa insertion in the elongation factor 1α (EF-1α) protein identified by Rivera and Lake (,3) supports the eocyte tree, as does the phylogeny of EF-1α itself (e.g., refs. ,3 and ,17).

New Support for an Old Idea

Cox et al. (6) perform a critical examination of the evidence for and against the eocyte hypothesis and the 3-domains tree: they revisit the phylogeny of large subunit (LSU) and small subunit (SSU) rRNA and carry out a comprehensive analysis of a set of 51 genes/proteins that includes components of the core replication, transcription, and translation machinery, the so-called “informational” genes (,19). Using sophisticated methodologies that accommodate among-site compositional heterogeneity in DNA and protein sequences (,20) and lineage-specific compositional changes over time (,21), Cox et al. show that a combined 40-taxon LSU–SSU rRNA dataset produces topologies consistent with the eocyte tree, not the 3-domains tree. Thirty-nine of the 51 core proteins analyzed were found to be heterogeneous in amino acid composition, and remarkably, only a single protein (the largest subunit of RNA polymerase I) generated a statistically robust topology in which archaebacteria were monophyletic, i.e., crenarchaeotes and euryarchaeotes were each other's closest relatives. The remaining trees provided no strong evidence for or against either hypothesis, although of the 35 trees in which eukaryotes emerge from within a paraphyletic archaebacteria, 8 show the eocyte topology (6). Consistent with the results of Yutin et al. (22), it would appear that individual proteins analyzed in isolation do not paint a consistent picture as to whether the 3-domains tree should be favored over the eocyte tree or vice versa.

In search of increased resolution, Cox et al. (6) performed a battery of additional phylogenetic analyses on a concatenated set of 45 proteins culled from the original 51-protein dataset by eliminating alignments containing multiple eukaryotic paralogs. Using this supermatrix of 5,521 amino acid sites, traditional methods such as maximum parsimony resulted in the 3-domains topology, but a strongly-supported eocyte tree was obtained when maximum-likelihood and Bayesian analyses were performed, even under a “composition homogeneous” model. Use of a reduced amino acid alphabet to minimize the impact of saturation and/or compositional heterogeneity resulted in a robust crenarchaeote–eukaryote relationship. In sum, their analyses “… provide support for the eocyte tree, rather than the 3-domains tree” (,6).

What are we to make of this conclusion? The gulf between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is obviously enormous, and the thorn in the side of the eocyte hypothesis has always been how to rationalize crenarchaeote–eukaryote monophyly with the apparent unity of archaebacteria from the perspective of molecular and cell biology. One of the most commonly raised objections is the fact that archaebacteria possess glycerol-ether membrane lipids, unlike the glycerol-ester lipids found in most eubacteria and eukaryotes. If, as the eocyte hypothesis predicts, the eukaryotic nucleocytoplasm evolved from within archaebacteria, eukaryotes would have had to replace their ancestral lipid biosynthesis pathway with a eubacterial-type system. At first glance this might seem problematic but it is not so difficult to imagine given that the “operational” genes of eukaryotes are primarily eubacterial in origin, not archaebacterial (23).

Conversely, comparative genomic studies have revealed that most “informational” genes in archaebacteria (e.g., those involved in DNA replication, transcription, and translation) are related to eukaryotic homologs (23, ,24). Although it is often assumed that archaebacteria are monophyletic, there is in fact still much to learn about the biology of crenarchaeotes relative to euryarchaeotes. Indeed, the recent discovery of a novel cell division machinery in diverse crenarchaeal genera, unrelated to the FtsZ-based system found in euryarchaeotes and with proteins homologous to components of the eukaryote-specific endosomal protein sorting apparatus (,25, ,26), raises the possibility that a variety of molecular phylogeny-independent characters will eventually be brought to bear on the validity of the eocyte hypothesis.

The extent to which a small fraction of the genomes of living organisms can be used to trace the history of cellular lineages dating back >1 billion years will no doubt continue to be debated for years to come. Regardless, an important message to be taken from the analysis of Cox et al. (6) is just how sensitive the results of molecular phylogenies involving anciently diverged sequences can be to model misspecification and compositional heterogeneity. Beyond serving as a general impetus for reexamination of any number of tough phylogenetic problems, the results of Cox et al. serve to put the eocyte hypothesis firmly back “on the radar” of those struggling to understand the earliest events in the diversification of cellular lineages.

Footnotes

  • 1E-mail: jmarchib{at}dal.ca
  • Author contributions: J.M.A. wrote the paper.

  • The author declares no conflict of interest.

  • See companion article on page 20356.

  • © 2008 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA

References

  1. ↵
    1. Lake JA,
    2. Henderson E,
    3. Oakes M,
    4. Clark MW
    (1984) Eocytes: A new ribosome structure indicates a kingdom with a close relationship to eukaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:3786–3790.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Lake JA
    (1988) Origin of the eukaryotic nucleus determined by rate-invariant analysis of rRNA sequences. Nature 331:184–186.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Rivera MC,
    2. Lake JA
    (1992) Evidence that eukaryotes and eocyte prokaryotes are immediate relatives. Science 257:74–76.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Tourasse NJ,
    2. Gouy M
    (1999) Accounting for evolutionary rate variation among sequence sites consistently changes universal phylogenies deduced from rRNA and protein-coding genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol 13:159–168.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Woese CR,
    2. Kandler O,
    3. Wheelis ML
    (1990) Toward a natural system of organisms: Proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:4576–4579.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Cox CJ,
    2. Foster PG,
    3. Hirt RP,
    4. Harris SR,
    5. Embley TM
    (2008) The archaebacterial origin of eukaryotes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20356–20361.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Stanier RA,
    2. van Niel CB
    (1962) The concept of a bacterium. Arch Microbiol 42:17–35.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Pace NR
    (2006) Time for a change. Nature 441:289.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Sapp J
    (2006) Two faces of the prokaryote concept. Int Microbiol 9:163–172.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Dagan T,
    2. Martin W
    (2006) The tree of one percent. Genome Biol 7:118.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Wolf YI,
    2. Rogozin IB,
    3. Grishin NV,
    4. Koonin EV
    (2002) Genome trees and the tree of life. Trends Genet 18:472–479.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Doolittle WF
    (1999) Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 284:2124–2129.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Kurland CG,
    2. Canback B,
    3. Berg OG
    (2003) Horizontal gene transfer: A critical view. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:9658–9662.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. McInerney JO,
    2. Cotton JA,
    3. Pisani D
    (2008) The prokaryotic tree of life: past, present. .. and future? Trends Ecol Evol 23:276–281.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Woese CR
    (1987) Bacterial evolution. Microbiol Rev 51:221–271.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Philippe H,
    2. Forterre P
    (1999) The rooting of the universal tree of life is not reliable. J Mol Evol 49:509–523.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Baldauf SL,
    2. Palmer JD,
    3. Doolittle WF
    (1996) The root of the universal tree and the origin of eukaryotes based on elongation factor phylogeny. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:7749–7754.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Gribaldo S,
    2. Cammarano P
    (1998) The root of the uni-versal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery. J Mol Evol 47:508–516.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Jain R,
    2. Rivera MC,
    3. Lake JA
    (1999) Horizontal gene transfer among genomes: The complexity hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:3801–3806.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Lartillot N,
    2. Philippe H
    (2004) A Bayesian mixture model for across-site heterogeneities in the amino acid replacement process. Mol Biol Evol 21:1095–1109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Foster PG
    (2004) Modeling compositional heterogeneity. Syst Biol 53:485–495.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Yutin N,
    2. Makarova KS,
    3. Mekhedov SL,
    4. Wolf YI,
    5. Koonin EV
    (2008) The deep archaeal roots of eukaryotes. Mol Biol Evol 25:1619–1630.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    1. Esser C,
    2. et al.
    (2004) A genome phylogeny for mitochondria among α-proteobacteria and a predominantly eubacterial ancestry of yeast nuclear genes. Mol Biol Evol 21:1643–1660.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    1. Rivera MC,
    2. Jain R,
    3. Moore JE,
    4. Lake JA
    (1998) Genomic evidence for two functionally distinct gene classes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:6239–6244.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    1. Lindas A-C,
    2. Karlsson EA,
    3. Lindgren MT,
    4. Ettema TJG,
    5. Bernander R
    (2008) A unique cell division machinery in the Archaea. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:18942–18946.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Samson RY,
    2. Obita T,
    3. Freund SM,
    4. Williams RL,
    5. Bell SD
    (2008) A role for the ESCRT system in cell division in Archaea. Science doi:10.1126/science.1165322.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The eocyte hypothesis and the origin of eukaryotic cells
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
The eocyte hypothesis and the origin of eukaryotic cells
John M. Archibald
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2008, 105 (51) 20049-20050; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0811118106

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
The eocyte hypothesis and the origin of eukaryotic cells
John M. Archibald
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Dec 2008, 105 (51) 20049-20050; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0811118106
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (7)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Evolving Views on the Tree of Life
    • New Support for an Old Idea
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Opinion: “Plan S” falls short for society publishers—and for the researchers they serve
Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Image credit: Dave Cutler (artist).
Several large or long-lived animals seem strangely resistant to developing cancer. Elucidating the reasons why could lead to promising cancer-fighting strategies in humans.
Core Concept: Solving Peto’s Paradox to better understand cancer
Several large or long-lived animals seem strangely resistant to developing cancer. Elucidating the reasons why could lead to promising cancer-fighting strategies in humans.
Image credit: Shutterstock.com/ronnybas frimages.
Featured Profile
PNAS Profile of NAS member and biochemist Hao Wu
 Nonmonogamous strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio).  Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Putative signature of monogamy
A study suggests a putative gene-expression hallmark common to monogamous male vertebrates of some species, namely cichlid fishes, dendrobatid frogs, passeroid songbirds, common voles, and deer mice, and identifies 24 candidate genes potentially associated with monogamy.
Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Active lifestyles. Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.
Meaningful life tied to healthy aging
Physical and social well-being in old age are linked to self-assessments of life worth, and a spectrum of behavioral, economic, health, and social variables may influence whether aging individuals believe they are leading meaningful lives.
Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.

More Articles of This Classification

  • Solution to the 50-year-old Okazaki-fragment problem
  • Musical pleasure and musical emotions
  • Species coexistence through competition and rapid evolution
Show more

Related Content

  • The archaebacterial origin of eukaryotes
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited by...

  • Concurrent origins of the genetic code and the homochirality of life, and the origin and evolution of biodiversity. Part II: Technical appendix
  • Scopus (13)
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2019 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490