The notion that eukaryotes are ancestrally sexual has been gaining attention. This idea comes in part from the discovery of sets of “meiosis‐specific genes” in the genomes of protists. The existence of these genes has persuaded many that these organisms may be engaging in sex, even though this has gone undetected. The involvement of sex in protists is supported by the view that asexual reproduction results in the accumulation of mutations that would inevitably result in the decline and extinction of (...) such lineages. It is argued that this phenomenon can be obviated by polyploidy and that the “meiosis‐specific genes” are used in other processes, including polyploidy control and homologous recombination, independent of meiosis. These phenomena account for the finding that these genes are expressed in cultures devoid of apparent cell fusion events. Hence, it is also proposed that asexual, and not sexual, reproduction is the ancestral condition. (shrink)

The distribution pattern of the meiotic machinery in known eukaryotes is most parsimoniously explained by the hypothesis that all eukaryotes are ancestrally sexual. However, this assumption is questioned by preliminary results, in culture conditions. These suggested that Acanthamoeba, an organism considered to be largely asexual, constitutively expresses meiosis genes nevertheless—at least in the lab. This apparent disconnect between the “meiosis toolkit” and sexual processes in Acanthamoeba led to the conclusion that the eukaryotic ancestor is asexual. In this review, the “meiosis (...) toolkit” is rigorously defended, drawing on numerous research articles. Additionally, the claim of constitutive meiotic gene expression is probed in Acanthamoeba via the same transcriptomics data. The results show that the expression of the meiotic machinery is not constitutive in Acanthamoeba as claimed before. Furthermore, it is argued that this would have no implications for understanding the nature of the eukaryotic ancestor, regardless of the result. (shrink)