Cargando…

Did group II intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes?

Martin & Koonin recently proposed that the eukaryote nucleus evolved as a quality control mechanism to prevent ribosome readthrough into introns. In their scenario, the bacterial ancestor of mitochondria was resident in an archaeal cell, and group II introns (carried by the fledgling mitochondri...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Poole, Anthony M
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17156426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-1-36
_version_ 1782131291786838016
author Poole, Anthony M
author_facet Poole, Anthony M
author_sort Poole, Anthony M
collection PubMed
description Martin & Koonin recently proposed that the eukaryote nucleus evolved as a quality control mechanism to prevent ribosome readthrough into introns. In their scenario, the bacterial ancestor of mitochondria was resident in an archaeal cell, and group II introns (carried by the fledgling mitochondrion) inserted into coding regions in the archaeal host genome. They suggest that if transcription and translation were coupled, and because splicing is expected to have been slower than translation, the effect of insertion would have been ribosome readthrough into introns, resulting in production of aberrant proteins. The emergence of the nuclear compartment would thus have served to separate transcription and splicing from translation, thereby alleviating this problem. In this article, I argue that Martin & Koonin's model is not compatible with current knowledge. The model requires that group II introns would spread aggressively through an archaeal genome. It is well known that selfish elements can spread through an outbreeding sexual population despite a substantial fitness cost to the host. The same is not true for asexual lineages however, where both theory and observation argue that such elements will be under pressure to reduce proliferation, and may be lost completely. The recent introduction of group II introns into archaea by horizontal transfer provides a natural test case with which to evaluate Martin & Koonin's model. The distribution and behaviour of these introns fits prior theoretical expectations, not the scenario of aggressive proliferation advocated by Martin & Koonin. I therefore conclude that the mitochondrial seed hypothesis for the origin of eukaryote introns, on which their model is based, better explains the early expansion of introns in eukaryotes. The mitochondrial seed hypothesis has the capacity to separate the origin of eukaryotes from the origin of introns, leaving open the possibility that the cell that engulfed the ancestor of mitochondria was a sexually outcrossing eukaryote cell.
format Text
id pubmed-1712230
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-17122302006-12-28 Did group II intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes? Poole, Anthony M Biol Direct Comment Martin & Koonin recently proposed that the eukaryote nucleus evolved as a quality control mechanism to prevent ribosome readthrough into introns. In their scenario, the bacterial ancestor of mitochondria was resident in an archaeal cell, and group II introns (carried by the fledgling mitochondrion) inserted into coding regions in the archaeal host genome. They suggest that if transcription and translation were coupled, and because splicing is expected to have been slower than translation, the effect of insertion would have been ribosome readthrough into introns, resulting in production of aberrant proteins. The emergence of the nuclear compartment would thus have served to separate transcription and splicing from translation, thereby alleviating this problem. In this article, I argue that Martin & Koonin's model is not compatible with current knowledge. The model requires that group II introns would spread aggressively through an archaeal genome. It is well known that selfish elements can spread through an outbreeding sexual population despite a substantial fitness cost to the host. The same is not true for asexual lineages however, where both theory and observation argue that such elements will be under pressure to reduce proliferation, and may be lost completely. The recent introduction of group II introns into archaea by horizontal transfer provides a natural test case with which to evaluate Martin & Koonin's model. The distribution and behaviour of these introns fits prior theoretical expectations, not the scenario of aggressive proliferation advocated by Martin & Koonin. I therefore conclude that the mitochondrial seed hypothesis for the origin of eukaryote introns, on which their model is based, better explains the early expansion of introns in eukaryotes. The mitochondrial seed hypothesis has the capacity to separate the origin of eukaryotes from the origin of introns, leaving open the possibility that the cell that engulfed the ancestor of mitochondria was a sexually outcrossing eukaryote cell. BioMed Central 2006-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC1712230/ /pubmed/17156426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-1-36 Text en Copyright © 2006 Poole; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Comment
Poole, Anthony M
Did group II intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes?
title Did group II intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes?
title_full Did group II intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes?
title_fullStr Did group II intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes?
title_full_unstemmed Did group II intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes?
title_short Did group II intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes?
title_sort did group ii intron proliferation in an endosymbiont-bearing archaeon create eukaryotes?
topic Comment
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1712230/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17156426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-1-36
work_keys_str_mv AT pooleanthonym didgroupiiintronproliferationinanendosymbiontbearingarchaeoncreateeukaryotes