Cargando…
In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm
BACKGROUND: Recently, important discoveries regarding the archaeon that functioned as the “host” in the merger with a bacterium that led to the eukaryotes, its “complex” nature, and its phylogenetic relationship to eukaryotes, have been reported. Based on these new insights proposals have been put f...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28927381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-1059-z |
_version_ | 1783264876346474496 |
---|---|
author | van der Gulik, P.T.S. Hoff, W.D. Speijer, D. |
author_facet | van der Gulik, P.T.S. Hoff, W.D. Speijer, D. |
author_sort | van der Gulik, P.T.S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Recently, important discoveries regarding the archaeon that functioned as the “host” in the merger with a bacterium that led to the eukaryotes, its “complex” nature, and its phylogenetic relationship to eukaryotes, have been reported. Based on these new insights proposals have been put forward to get rid of the three-domain Model of life, and replace it with a two-domain model. RESULTS: We present arguments (both regarding timing, complexity, and chemical nature of specific evolutionary processes, as well as regarding genetic structure) to resist such proposals. The three-domain Model represents an accurate description of the differences at the most fundamental level of living organisms, as the eukaryotic lineage that arose from this unique merging event is distinct from both Archaea and Bacteria in a myriad of crucial ways. CONCLUSIONS: We maintain that “a natural system of organisms”, as proposed when the three-domain Model of life was introduced, should not be revised when considering the recent discoveries, however exciting they may be. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5604501 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56045012017-09-20 In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm van der Gulik, P.T.S. Hoff, W.D. Speijer, D. BMC Evol Biol Review BACKGROUND: Recently, important discoveries regarding the archaeon that functioned as the “host” in the merger with a bacterium that led to the eukaryotes, its “complex” nature, and its phylogenetic relationship to eukaryotes, have been reported. Based on these new insights proposals have been put forward to get rid of the three-domain Model of life, and replace it with a two-domain model. RESULTS: We present arguments (both regarding timing, complexity, and chemical nature of specific evolutionary processes, as well as regarding genetic structure) to resist such proposals. The three-domain Model represents an accurate description of the differences at the most fundamental level of living organisms, as the eukaryotic lineage that arose from this unique merging event is distinct from both Archaea and Bacteria in a myriad of crucial ways. CONCLUSIONS: We maintain that “a natural system of organisms”, as proposed when the three-domain Model of life was introduced, should not be revised when considering the recent discoveries, however exciting they may be. BioMed Central 2017-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5604501/ /pubmed/28927381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-1059-z Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis 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. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Review van der Gulik, P.T.S. Hoff, W.D. Speijer, D. In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm |
title | In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm |
title_full | In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm |
title_fullStr | In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm |
title_full_unstemmed | In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm |
title_short | In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm |
title_sort | in defence of the three-domains of life paradigm |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5604501/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28927381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-1059-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vandergulikpts indefenceofthethreedomainsoflifeparadigm AT hoffwd indefenceofthethreedomainsoflifeparadigm AT speijerd indefenceofthethreedomainsoflifeparadigm |