4.0 Review

How do plastids and mitochondria divide?

Journal

MICROSCOPY
Volume 68, Issue 1, Pages 45-56

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jmicro/dfy132

Keywords

plastid division; mitochondrial division; endosymbiosis; PDR1; MDR1; endosymbiotic-organelle-dividing machinery

Categories

Funding

  1. Human Frontier Science Program Career Development Award [CDA00049/2018-C]
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [JP18K06325]
  3. JGC-S (Nikki Saneyoshi) Scholarship Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Plastids and mitochondria are thought to have originated from free-living cyanobacterial and alpha-proteobacterial ancestors, respectively, via endosymbiosis. Their evolutionary origins dictate that these organelles do not multiply de novo but through the division of pre-existing plastids and mitochondria. Over the past three decades, studies have shown that plastid and mitochondrial division are performed by contractile ring-shaped structures, broadly termed the plastid and mitochondrial-division machineries. Interestingly, the division machineries are hybrid forms of the bacterial cell division system and eukaryotic membrane fission system. The structure and function of the plastid and mitochondrial-division machineries are similar to each other, implying that the division machineries evolved in parallel since their establishment in primitive eukaryotes. Compared with our knowledge of their structures, our understanding of the mechanical details of how these division machineries function is still quite limited. Here, we review and compare the structural frameworks of the plastid and mitochondrial-division machineries in both lower and higher eukaryotes. Then, we highlight fundamental issues that need to be resolved to reveal the underlying mechanisms of plastid and mitochondrial division. Finally, we highlight related studies that point to an exciting future for the field.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available