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)

Beta‐oxidation of fatty acids and detoxification of reactive oxygen species are generally accepted as being fundamental functions of peroxisomes. Additionally, these pathways might have been the driving force favoring the selection of this compartment during eukaryotic evolution. Here we performed phylogenetic analyses of enzymes involved in beta‐oxidation of fatty acids in Bacteria, Eukaryota, and Archaea. These imply an alpha‐proteobacterial origin for three out of four enzymes. By integrating the enzymes' history into the contrasting models on the origin of eukaryotic cells, (...) we conclude that peroxisomes most likely evolved non‐symbiotically and subsequent to the acquisition of mitochondria in an archaeal host cell. (shrink)

As free‐living organisms, alpha‐proteobacteria produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) that diffuse into the surroundings; once constrained inside the archaeal ancestor of eukaryotes, however, ROS production presented evolutionary pressures – especially because the alpha‐proteobacterial symbiont made more ROS, from a variety of substrates. I previously proposed that ratios of electrons coming from FADH2 and NADH (F/N ratios) correlate with ROS production levels during respiration, glucose breakdown having a much lower F/N ratio than longer fatty acid (FA) breakdown. Evidently, higher endogenous ROS (...) formation did not hinder eukaryotic evolution, so how were its disadvantages mitigated? I propose that the resulting selection pressures favoured the evolution of a variety of eukaryotic ‘innovations’: peroxisomes for FA breakdown, carnitine shuttles, the linkage of beta‐oxidation to antioxidant properties, uncoupling proteins (UCPs) and using mitochondrial uncoupling during beta‐oxidation to reduce ROS. Recently observed relationships between peroxisomes and mitochondria further support the model. (shrink)

Mitochondria and peroxisomes are essential subcellular organelles in mammals. Despite obvious differences, both organelles display certain morphological and functional similarities. Recent studies have elucidated that these highly dynamic and plastic organelles share components of their division machinery. Mitochondria and peroxisomes are metabolically linked organelles, which are cooperating and cross‐talking. This review addresses the dynamics and division of mitochondria and peroxisomes as well as their functional similarities to provide insight as to why these organelles share the fission machinery in evolutionary aspects.© (...) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

At first glance the three eukaryotic protein translocation machineries – the ER‐associated degradation (ERAD) transport apparatus of the endoplasmic reticulum, the peroxisomal importomer and SELMA, the pre‐protein translocator of complex plastids – appear quite different. However, mechanistic comparisons and phylogenetic analyses presented here suggest that all three translocation machineries share a common ancestral origin, which highlights the recycling of pre‐existing components as an effective evolutionary driving force.Editor's suggested further reading in BioEssays ERAD ubiquitin ligases Abstract.