11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multidomain ribosomal protein trees and the planctobacterial origin of neomura (eukaryotes, archaebacteria)

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Palaeontologically, eubacteria are > 3× older than neomura (eukaryotes, archaebacteria). Cell biology contrasts ancestral eubacterial murein peptidoglycan walls and derived neomuran N-linked glycoprotein coats/walls. Misinterpreting long stems connecting clade neomura to eubacteria on ribosomal sequence trees (plus misinterpreted protein paralogue trees) obscured this historical pattern. Universal multiprotein ribosomal protein (RP) trees, more accurate than rRNA trees, are taxonomically undersampled. To reduce contradictions with genically richer eukaryote trees and improve eubacterial phylogeny, we constructed site-heterogeneous and maximum-likelihood universal three-domain, two-domain, and single-domain trees for 143 eukaryotes (branching now congruent with 187-protein trees), 60 archaebacteria, and 151 taxonomically representative eubacteria, using 51 and 26 RPs. Site-heterogeneous trees greatly improve eubacterial phylogeny and higher classification, e.g. showing gracilicute monophyly, that many ‘rDNA-phyla’ belong in Proteobacteria, and reveal robust new phyla Synthermota and Aquithermota. Monoderm Posibacteria and Mollicutes (two separate wall losses) are both polyphyletic: multiple outer membrane losses in Endobacteria occurred separately from Actinobacteria; neither phylum is related to Chloroflexi, the most divergent prokaryotes, which originated photosynthesis (new model proposed). RP trees support an eozoan root for eukaryotes and are consistent with archaebacteria being their sisters and rooted between Filarchaeota (=Proteoarchaeota, including ‘Asgardia’) and Euryarchaeota sensu-lato (including ultrasimplified ‘DPANN’ whose long branches often distort trees). Two-domain trees group eukaryotes within Planctobacteria, and archaebacteria with Planctobacteria/Sphingobacteria. Integrated molecular/palaeontological evidence favours negibacterial ancestors for neomura and all life. Unique presence of key pre-neomuran characters favours Planctobacteria only as ancestral to neomura, which apparently arose by coevolutionary repercussions (explained here in detail, including RP replacement) of simultaneous outer membrane and murein loss. Planctobacterial C-1 methanotrophic enzymes are likely ancestral to archaebacterial methanogenesis and β-propeller-α-solenoid proteins to eukaryotic vesicle coats, nuclear-pore-complexes, and intraciliary transport. Planctobacterial chaperone-independent 4/5-protofilament microtubules and MamK actin-ancestors prepared for eukaryote intracellular motility, mitosis, cytokinesis, and phagocytosis. We refute numerous wrong ideas about the universal tree.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s00709-019-01442-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references440

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cohesin: its roles and mechanisms.

          The cohesin complex is a major constituent of interphase and mitotic chromosomes. Apart from its role in mediating sister chromatid cohesion, it is also important for DNA double-strand-break repair and transcriptional control. The functions of cohesin are regulated by phosphorylation, acetylation, ATP hydrolysis, and site-specific proteolysis. Recent evidence suggests that cohesin acts as a novel topological device that traps chromosomal DNA within a large tripartite ring formed by its core subunits.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Classification and evolution of P-loop GTPases and related ATPases.

            Sequences and available structures were compared for all the widely distributed representatives of the P-loop GTPases and GTPase-related proteins with the aim of constructing an evolutionary classification for this superclass of proteins and reconstructing the principal events in their evolution. The GTPase superclass can be divided into two large classes, each of which has a unique set of sequence and structural signatures (synapomorphies). The first class, designated TRAFAC (after translation factors) includes enzymes involved in translation (initiation, elongation, and release factors), signal transduction (in particular, the extended Ras-like family), cell motility, and intracellular transport. The second class, designated SIMIBI (after signal recognition particle, MinD, and BioD), consists of signal recognition particle (SRP) GTPases, the assemblage of MinD-like ATPases, which are involved in protein localization, chromosome partitioning, and membrane transport, and a group of metabolic enzymes with kinase or related phosphate transferase activity. These two classes together contain over 20 distinct families that are further subdivided into 57 subfamilies (ancient lineages) on the basis of conserved sequence motifs, shared structural features, and domain architectures. Ten subfamilies show a universal phyletic distribution compatible with presence in the last universal common ancestor of the extant life forms (LUCA). These include four translation factors, two OBG-like GTPases, the YawG/YlqF-like GTPases (these two subfamilies also consist of predicted translation factors), the two signal-recognition-associated GTPases, and the MRP subfamily of MinD-like ATPases. The distribution of nucleotide specificity among the proteins of the GTPase superclass indicates that the common ancestor of the entire superclass was a GTPase and that a secondary switch to ATPase activity has occurred on several independent occasions during evolution. The functions of most GTPases that are traceable to LUCA are associated with translation. However, in contrast to other superclasses of P-loop NTPases (RecA-F1/F0, AAA+, helicases, ABC), GTPases do not participate in NTP-dependent nucleic acid unwinding and reorganizing activities. Hence, we hypothesize that the ancestral GTPase was an enzyme with a generic regulatory role in translation, with subsequent diversification resulting in acquisition of diverse functions in transport, protein trafficking, and signaling. In addition to the classification of previously known families of GTPases and related ATPases, we introduce several previously undetected families and describe new functional predictions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methane metabolism in the archaeal phylum Bathyarchaeota revealed by genome-centric metagenomics.

              Methanogenic and methanotrophic archaea play important roles in the global flux of methane. Culture-independent approaches are providing deeper insight into the diversity and evolution of methane-metabolizing microorganisms, but, until now, no compelling evidence has existed for methane metabolism in archaea outside the phylum Euryarchaeota. We performed metagenomic sequencing of a deep aquifer, recovering two near-complete genomes belonging to the archaeal phylum Bathyarchaeota (formerly known as the Miscellaneous Crenarchaeotal Group). These genomes contain divergent homologs of the genes necessary for methane metabolism, including those that encode the methyl-coenzyme M reductase (MCR) complex. Additional non-euryarchaeotal MCR-encoding genes identified in a range of environments suggest that unrecognized archaeal lineages may also contribute to global methane cycling. These findings indicate that methane metabolism arose before the last common ancestor of the Euryarchaeota and Bathyarchaeota.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                tom.cavalier-smith@zoo.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                Protoplasma
                Protoplasma
                Protoplasma
                Springer Vienna (Vienna )
                0033-183X
                1615-6102
                3 January 2020
                3 January 2020
                2020
                : 257
                : 3
                : 621-753
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.4991.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, Department of Zoology, , University of Oxford, ; South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PS UK
                Author notes

                Handling Editor: Peter Nick

                Article
                1442
                10.1007/s00709-019-01442-7
                7203096
                31900730
                995c76a3-7427-4810-9b1c-8ae01607ff80
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 25 February 2019
                : 19 September 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000270, Natural Environment Research Council;
                Award ID: NE/E004156/1
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2020

                Molecular biology
                ribosomal protein universal tree,archaebacteria,eubacterial phylogeny,rooting eukaryote trees,eukaryogenesis

                Comments

                Comment on this article