Even more than the invention of photosynthesis or the transition to multicellularity, the transition from bacteria to eukaryotes was perhaps the most dramatic and momentous evolutionary event after the origination of life. Bacteria are everywhere, and still dominate the biosphere in many respects with an unparalleled range of biochemistries. But they have severely limited prospects, being so streamlined in their genetic and sexual practices that they seem unable to escape their single-celled, remorselessly competitive fate.
Eukaryotes are known to have originated in the fusion of at least two different bacteria-like microorganisms, one perhaps an amoeba-like hunter, the other the bacterium that became our mitochondrion. Plus another that in plants became the chloroplast. There are several theories about the details, of which several propose metabolic symbiosis- that the original exchange between the mitochondrial progenitor and its host was actually not amoeboid engulfment, but quite gradual and voluntary, uniting a methanogenic partner that used small organic compounds and hydrogen as its inputs- making methane- with a methanotrophic host that produced various organic compounds from methane plus CO2 without complaint.
But once joined, eukaryotes did so much more, generating countless innovations in cell organization, sex, genetic control, organelle subspecialization, membrane management, cytoskeletal structure, among others, that it is hard to believe this event ever happened, and difficult to reconstruct its steps. In this regard, it is similar to the origination of life, where several obstacles (enclosure of a cell with selective transport, replicative mechanism, and metabolic power, perhaps among others as yet unappreciated) all had to be surmounted in some fashion before something that we would call life existed- a process that remains a topic of wide-ranging speculation.
But the starting point for eukaryotes seems to have been an archaeon- a member of the third major kingdom of life discovered only in the 1970's, which are unicellular like bacteria, but have many distinct molecular and genetic mechanisms that are more closely related to eukaryotes than to bacteria. These seem to be our nuclear ancestors, with a lot of bacterial genetic material added later on, either from the early mitochondrial symbiont, or from other transfers, which enriched their biochemical range. The big questions are- what caused the unification of these two life forms, and why did it result in such an extensive profusion of other innovative traits? A recent paper (review) is devoted to the first question to some degree, discovering a new archaeal species that is the closest yet to such a transitional form.
"We confirmed the presence of 80 eukaryotic signature proteins, which are also observed in related Asgard archaea."
To do this, they cultivated deep marine sediments from around Japan in an oxygen-free bioreactor, feeding methane (plus a bunch of antibiotics, to kill off any bacteria) in order to cultivate organisms that are notoriously hard to cultivate. They were looking for anaerobic archaea that die in oxygen, and live off of methane, which they get typically from partner bacteria. The hydrogen that the former (methanotrophs) produce from methane is toxic in large amounts, so having a partner to use it and give methane in return is a partnership made in heaven. Those partners (at first, methanogens) eat hydrogen and CO2, or other small organic molecules and produce methane. The new methanotroph is not just picky about conditions it will grow in, but extremely slow-growing, doubling in the best of conditions in about 20 days. These are not E. coli! Indeed, the whole project took a decade.
The idea to culture such obscure and obdurate organisms comes from two sources. First were existing hypotheses about how eukaryotes got started, in the form of metabolic collaborations described above, between disparate micro-organisms, centering on the use and exchange of methane and hydrogen, in addition to electrons and other compounds. Second were surveys of marine sediments and many other habitats for raw DNA, which has been sequenced in vast amounts. Such DNA is obviously a messy mixture, but given enough patience and computer power, one can re-assemble many interesting distinct genomes out of it, and some transition-like genomes have been glimpsed in this way. But what could be the corresponding organism? That was the question.
 |
| The author's phylogenetic tree across all kingdoms, using ribosomal proteins, highlighting the new organism's (red) position as sister group between archaea and eukaryotes. Note how relatively deep the divergence (X-axis) is between bacteria at the bottoms, and all other life forms. |
One key analysis was to put this new organism into a phylogenetic tree, using the incredibly well-conserved sequences of the ribosomal proteins. The diagram above shows that the new organism, dubbed MK-D1, sits right at the threshold of the eukaryotic group, just as one would expect for an ancestor. It constitutes, to date and in molecular terms, the closest organism to eukaryotes that is not one itself. The diagram also shows, yet again, the vast molecular gulf between bacteria (at the very bottom) and archaea, which occupy most of the middle. While eukaryotes (top) are clearly a sister group of archaea, it is the divide between archaea and bacteria that is the most profound within the whole biosphere.
These new organisms are unexpectedly small- tiny, indeed. They are not the huge phagocytic amoeba that have often been imagined engulfing hapless bacterial partners about to be taken hostage. No, the methanogenic partners that are co-cultured by these researchers are far larger, by roughly ten-fold. But the new methanotroph has some interesting behaviors, such as putting out extensive cell projections and curious vesicles. It also has, as expected, a variety of genes that characterize eukaryotes, such as actin, profilin, Ras, G-beta like protein, TPR motifs, Zinc finger and HTH proteins, core transcription proteins like TFIIB, SMC, Ankyrin motifs, histones, SNARE-like proteins, signal recognition factor.
 |
| Micrographs of the new organism, MK-D1. Left is a high-magnification electron micrograph showing membrane vesicles budding off the main cell. Scale, 200 nm. Right is a scanning electron micrograph of two or three cells with dramatic projections emerging, plus some previously budded vesicles lying about. Scale, 1 micron. |
Of course, this organism exists now, a couple billion years after its imagined ancestor occured in a lineage that we speculate was related to one that led to eukaryotes. So it is a stretch to make this diagnosis of a transitional form. Except that relict forms seem to litter the biosphere, such as the stromatolites that still crop up in Australia, and the vast hordes of bacteria and archaea that remain the metabolic engines of the biosphere, in perpetual competition, yet also largely frozen in their lifestyles and roles.
When free oxygen was introduced into the biosphere by nascent photosynthesis, starting roughly two and a half billion years ago, the putative methane-exchanging organisms all needed extra partners to detoxify it, for instance bacteria which oxidize (using O2) organic compounds to CO2. This, finally, was the motivating force for the partnership with the true mitochondrion, which performs the same service today, providing enormous amounts of energy along the way. The transition from the loose partnership cultured by the current researchers to the one that truly gave rise to eukaryotes is a bit murky under their class of hypotheses, but there are other hypotheses that make a more direct job of it.
- Get out of those cars.
- The pandemic certainly highlights inequality. Can it solve it?
- New ideas in coronavirus pathogenesis and treatment.
- Why do we have a constitution and a judicial branch, anyhow?
- Remember the Russian-backed coup in Iran? And then the then the one after that?
- Remembering early work on oncogenes.
- What is a troll?
