4.6 Article

Conflict and cooperation in eukaryogenesis: implications for the timing of endosymbiosis and the evolution of sex

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE
Volume 12, Issue 111, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0584

Keywords

eukaryogenesis; evolutionary conflict; mitochondria; sex; cell fusion; reactive oxygen species

Funding

  1. UCL Bogue Fellowship Award
  2. EPSRC/CoMPLEX PhD studentship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Roughly 1.5-2.0 Gya, the eukaryotic cell evolved from an endosymbiosis of an archaeal host and proteobacterial symbionts. The timing of this endosymbiosis relative to the evolution of eukaryotic features remains subject to considerable debate, yet the evolutionary process itself constrains the timing of these events. Endosymbiosis entailed levels-of-selection conflicts, and mechanisms of conflict mediation had to evolve for eukaryogenesis to proceed. The initial mechanisms of conflict mediation (e.g. signalling with calcium and soluble adenylyl cyclase, substrate carriers, adenine nucleotide translocase, uncouplers) led to metabolic homeostasis in the eukaryotic cell. Later mechanisms (e.g. mitochondrial gene loss) contributed to the chimeric eukaryotic genome. These integral features of eukaryotes were derived because of, and therefore subsequent to, endosymbiosis. Perhaps the greatest opportunity for conflict arose with the emergence of eukaryotic sex, involving whole-cell fusion. A simple model demonstrates that competition on the lower level severely hinders the evolution of sex. Cytoplasmic mixing, however, is beneficial for non-cooperative endosymbionts, which could have used their aerobic metabolism to manipulate the life history of the host. While early evolution of sex may have facilitated symbiont acquisition, sex would have also destabilized the subsequent endosymbiosis. More plausibly, the evolution of sex and the true nucleus concluded the transition.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available