What kind of symbiosis between archaeon and bacterium gave rise to their eventual merger at the origin of the eukaryotes? I hypothesize that conditions favouring bacterial uptake were based on exchange of intermediate carbohydrate metabolites required by recurring changes in availability and use of the two different terminal electron chain acceptors, the bacterial one being oxygen. Oxygen won, and definitive loss of the archaeal membrane potential allowed permanent establishment of the bacterial partner as the proto‐mitochondrion, further metabolic integration and highly (...) efficient ATP production. This represents initial symbiogenesis, when crucial eukaryotic traits arose in response to the archaeon‐bacterium merger. The attendant generation of internal reactive oxygen species (ROS) gave rise to a myriad of further eukaryotic adaptations, such as extreme mitochondrial genome reduction, nuclei, peroxisomes and meiotic sex. Eukaryotic origins could have started with shuffling intermediate metabolites as is still essential today. (shrink)

A decade ago I postulated that ROS formation in mitochondria was influenced by different FADH2/NADH (F/N) ratios of catabolic substrates. Thus, fatty acid oxidation (FAO) would give higher ROS formation than glucose oxidation. Both the emergence of peroxisomes and neurons not using FAO, could be explained thus. ROS formation in NADH:ubiquinone oxidoreductase (Complex I) comes about by reverse electron transport (RET) due to high QH2 levels, and scarcity of its electron‐acceptor (Q) during FAO. The then new, unexpected, finding of an (...) FAO enzyme, ACAD9, being involved in complex I biogenesis, hinted at connections in line with the hypothesis. Recent findings about ACAD9's role in regulation of respiration fit with predictions the model makes: cementing connections between ROS production and F/N ratios. I describe how ACAD9 might be central to reversing the oxidative damage in complex I resulting from FAO. This seems to involve two distinct, but intimately connected, ACAD9 characteristics: (i) its upregulation of complex I biogenesis, and (ii) releasing FADH2, with possible conversion into FMN, the crucial prosthetic group of complex I. Also see the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/N7AT_HBNumg. (shrink)

Protistology, and evolutionary protistology in particular, is experiencing a golden research era. It is an extended one that can be dated back to the 1970s, which is when the molecular rebirth of microbial phylogeny began in earnest. John Archibald, a professor of evolutionary microbiology at Dalhousie University, focuses on the beautiful story of endosymbiosis in his book, John Archibald, One Plus One Equals One: Symbiosis and the Origin of Complex Life. However, this historical narrative could be treated as synecdochal of (...) how the molecular revolution has changed evolutionary biology forever, and that is how Archibald has structured his book. I will address the encompassing theme of molecular methods in detail, but also pay careful attention to the endosymbiosis thread in its own right. (shrink)

Recently, the group of McBride reported a stunning observation regarding peroxisome biogenesis: newly born peroxisomes are hybrids of mitochondrial and ER-derived pre-peroxisomes. What was stunning? Studies performed with the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae had convincingly shown that peroxisomes are ER-derived, without indications for mitochondrial involvement. However, the recent finding using fibroblasts dovetails nicely with a mechanism inferred to be driving the eukaryotic invention of peroxisomes: reduction of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation associated with fatty acid oxidation. This not only explains the (...) mitochondrial involvement, but also its apparent absence in yeast. The latest results allow a reconstruction of the evolution of the yeast's highly derived metabolism and its limitations as a model organism in this instance. As I review here, peroxisomes are eukaryotic inventions reflecting mutual host endosymbiont adaptations: this is predicted by symbiogenetic theory, which states that the defining eukaryotic characteristics evolved as a result of mutual adaptations of two merging prokaryotes. See also the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/HtyKhQ3DSxg Eukaryotic peroxisomes illustrate effects of symbiogenesis, following the non-phagocytotic merger of an archaeon and a bacterium. Internal ROS formation upon fatty acid oxidation was reduced by the invention of peroxisomes for extra-mitochondrial FA oxidation. Both peroxisomal membranes and their oldest enzymes seem ultimately derived from the pre-mitochondrion. (shrink)

Darwinian evolution can be simply stated: natural selection of inherited variations increasing differential reproduction. However, formulated thus, links with biochemistry, cell biology, ecology, and population dynamics remain unclear. To understand interactive contributions of chance and selection, higher levels of biological organization (e.g., endosymbiosis), complexities of competing selection forces, and emerging biological novelties (such as eukaryotes or meiotic sex), we must analyze actual examples. Focusing on mitochondria, I will illuminate how biology makes sense of life's evolution, and the concepts involved. First, (...) looking at the bacterium – mitochondrion transition: merging with an archaeon, it lost its independence, but played a decisive role in eukaryogenesis, as an extremely efficient aerobic ATP generator and internal ROS source. Second, surveying later mitochondrion adaptations and diversifications illustrates concepts such as constructive neutral evolution, dynamic interactions between endosymbionts and hosts, the contingency of life histories, and metabolic reprogramming. Without oxygen, mitochondria disappear; with (intermittent) oxygen diversification occurs in highly complex ways, especially upon (temporary) phototrophic substrate supply. These expositions show the Darwinian model to be a highly fruitful paradigm. (shrink)

Of two contending models for eukaryotic evolution the “archezoan“ has an amitochondriate eukaryote take up an endosymbiont, while “symbiogenesis“ states that an Archaeon became a eukaryote as the result of this uptake. If so, organelle formation resulting from new engulfments is simplified by the primordial symbiogenesis, and less informative regarding the bacterium‐to‐mitochondrion conversion. Gradualist archezoan visions still permeate evolutionary thinking, but are much less likely than symbiogenesis. Genuine amitochondriate eukaryotes have never been found and rapid, explosive adaptive periods characteristic of (...) symbiogenetic models explain this. Mitochondrial proteomes, encoded by genes of “eukaryotic origin“ not easily linked to host or endosymbiont, can be understood in light of rapid adjustments to new evolutionary pressures. Symbiogenesis allows “expensive” eukaryotic inventions via efficient ATP generation by nascent mitochondria. However, efficient ATP production equals enhanced toxic internal ROS formation. The synergistic combination of these two driving forces gave rise to the rapid evolution of eukaryotes.Also watch the Video Abstract. (shrink)

Eukaryotic origins are heavily debated. The author as well as others have proposed that they are inextricably linked with the arrival of a pre‐mitochondrion of alphaproteobacterial‐like ancestry, in a so‐called symbiogenic scenario. The ensuing mutual adaptation of archaeal host and endosymbiont seems to have been a defining influence during the processes leading to the last eukaryotic common ancestor. An unresolved question in this scenario deals with the means by which the bacterium ends up inside. Older hypotheses revolve around the application (...) of known antagonistic interactions, the bacterium being prey or parasite. Here, in reviewing the field, the author argues that such models share flaws, hence making them less likely, and that a “pre‐symbiotic stage” would have eased ongoing metabolic integration. Based on this the author will speculate about the nature of the (endo) symbiosis that started eukaryotic evolution–in the context of bacterial entry being a relatively “early” event–and stress the differences between this uptake and subsequent ones. He will also briefly discuss how the mutual adaptation following the merger progressed and how many eukaryotic hallmarks can be understood in light of coadaptation. Also see the video abstract here https://youtu.be/ekqtNleVJpU. (shrink)

Is the spatial organization of membranes and compartments within cells subjected to any rules? Cellular compartmentation differs between prokaryotic and eukaryotic life, because it is present to a high degree only in eukaryotes. In 1964, Prof. Eberhard Schnepf formulated the compartmentation rule (Schnepf theorem), which posits that a biological membrane, the main physical structure responsible for cellular compartmentation, usually separates a plasmatic form a non‐plasmatic phase. Here we review and re‐investigate the Schnepf theorem by applying the theorem to different cellular (...) structures, from bacterial cells to eukaryotes with their organelles and compartments. In conclusion, we can confirm the general correctness of the Schnepf theorem, noting explicit exceptions only in special cases such as endosymbiosis and parasitism. (shrink)