‘A scientist in his laboratory is not a mere technician: he is also a child confronting natural phenomena that impress him [her] as though they were fairy tales’ (Marie Curie).

In evolutionary biology, the transition from prokaryotic to eukaryotic life was a true game changer. Eukaryogenesis involves the origin of new cell biology, genetics, and an unprecedented emergence of morphological diversity. Historically, the prokaryote-eukaryote divide was based on observed differences in morphology and in turn defined this aboriginal branch in the tree of life by their lack of traits that eukaryotes posses (Stanier and Van Niel, 1962). Phylogeny and biochemistry separate prokaryotes into bacteria and archaea (Fox et al., 1980; Koga et al., 1998; Woese et al., 1990) and document the dichotomy of pro- and eukaryotes, which is further evident in the number of protein families (Rebeaud et al., 2021), average protein length (Brocchieri and Karlin, 2005), cellular and morphological complexity (Stanier et al., 1963), and the overall prevalent contribution to the planet’s biomass (Bar et al., 2018).

For decades the field of eukaryogenesis speculated on the existence of a eukaryotic lineage with intermediate biology bridging the prokaryote-eukaryote divide, an elusive grade known as archezoa (Cavalier-Smith, 1987). For curious reasons (see Martin et al., 2017a, for details) this search focused on a eukaryotic phylum lacking a mitochondrion (Cavalier-Smith, 1987; Speijer, 2020), but not necessarily one lacking a nucleus or endoplasmic reticulum (ER). Varying models, but with the common theme of promoting an autogenous origin of a last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) independent of a bacterial partner, were proposed (reviewed in Martin et al., 2015). Through the identification of hydrogenosomes and mitosomes (reduced mitochondria; Tovar et al., 1999; Williams et al., 2002) and modern phylogenomics (Burki et al., 2020), we now understand that the biology of LECA matched that of extant garden variety protists. This might appear trivial from todays’ perspective, but reaching this consensus and settling on a mitochondrion-bearing LECA took decades. LECA evolved from an archaeal host cell and its endosymbiotic alphaproteobacterial partner (Imachi et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2022; Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka et al., 2017) and could have been syncytial and fungus-like, with the first gametes budding off as a selectable unit, in what one could describe to be a flagellated protist (Garg and Martin, 2016; Skejo et al., 2021).

The field exploring eukaryogenesis has moved on to studying the nature and origin of the first eukaryotic common ancestor (FECA). This subtle change in terminology has far-reaching consequences. The term FECA only puts a label on the first lineage that we would no longer define as prokaryotic, but which had not yet evolved all traits characterizing the LECA. But at what point did prokaryotic evolution transition into eukaryotic origin? Was it upon the emergence of meiosis and sex? Or the ER and its specialized compartment the nucleus? Or after the transition from archaeal to eukaryotic (bacterial-type) membrane lipids? The transition between prokaryotes and eukaryotes was fluid in nature, with the emergence of the new traits occurring in a currently unknown order (Gould et al., 2016; López-García and Moreira, 2020; Vosseberg et al., 2021). The critical question is: what drove the emergence of eukaryotic traits and what fixed them in evolution?

Here, we discuss the scenarios of a morphologically simple FECA versus a complex one on the basis of reviewing models and data that emerged after the report of the asgard archaeal superphylum from which the eukaryotic host lineage stems. We explore key eukaryotic traits and the phylogenetic distribution of protein associated families, in light of housing an endosymbiont that differs by all other traits in that it represents a semi-autonomous living entity. This imposed unique challenges onto the host throughout eukaryogenesis and whose solution, we argue, is witnessed in the form of compartmentalization, meiosis, and sex.

FECA and theories of eukaryogenesis in light of the asgard archaea

‘It can be considered a relatively harmless habit, like eating peanuts, unless it assumes the form of an obsession; then it becomes a vice’ (Roger Y Stanier).

The relatively harmless habit of tracing the origins of the eukaryotic cell has occupied scientists across several generations, a historical account of which is beyond the scope of this review but has been summarized elsewhere (Martin, 2017). Current models of eukaryogenesis differ above all in the relative placement and contribution of the endosymbiont and consequently the cellular complexity of the host archaeon prior to endosymbiosis. Briefly, mitochondria-early theories place endosymbiosis closer to or at FECA (Figure 1), suggesting that the traits that characterize LECA evolved after endosymbiosis from a prokaryotic-like host cell. On the contrary, mitochondria-late scenarios view endosymbiosis and mitochondrial origin as a finishing touch to the LECA (Figure 1). Intermediate models are gaining popularity, but are often vague on which traits evolved prior or after endosymbiosis.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

The notion that eukaryote-like complexity was a prerequisite to phagocytosis for promoting mitochondrial origin appears mandatory to some, but the idea remains unsubstantiated (Leão et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2017b; Mills, 2020; Shiratori et al., 2019). Mitochondria-lacking but phagocytosing LECA models – such as the archezoa hypothesis (Cavalier-Smith, 1987) – lost support due to the now known universal presence of mitochondria across the diversity of all eukaryotic super groups (Hjort et al., 2010; Stairs et al., 2015), but variations of the archezoa hypothesis populate the literature, rekindled on the basis of inferred proteomes from asgard archaea.

Reports of a patchy distribution of homologues of the eukaryotic ESCRT-III, a ubiquitin modifying system, and eukaryote-like actin in the TACK superphylum, triggered thoughts about phagocytosing archaea (Guy and Ettema, 2011; Yutin et al., 2009). The identification of proteins with homology to ESCRT I and II, longin domains, sec23 and sec24 (Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka et al., 2017), Rab-like GTPase (Akıl and Robinson, 2018; Klinger et al., 2016; Surkont and Pereira-Leal, 2016), or profilin that can inhibit (in vitro) rabbit actin polymerization (Akıl and Robinson, 2018; Survery et al., 2021) quickly channelled into speculations that asgard archaea might have a dynamic cytoskeleton, intracellular membrane trafficking, and are morphologically complex (Klinger et al., 2016; Neveu et al., 2020; Zachar et al., 2018; Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka et al., 2017). These interpretations mirror a FECA that is reminiscent of the host lineage at the centre of the archezoa hypothesis (discussed in Martin et al., 2017b), culminating in the depiction of a mitochondrion-lacking eukaryote on the cover of Nature (Pittis and Gabaldón, 2016). When transmission electron microscopy revealed images of asgard archaea, that of Prometheoarchaeon syntrophicum, they uncovered tiny prokaryotes with no intracellular eukaryotic traits living in syntrophy with bacteria (Imachi et al., 2020). Such images contradict the narrative of complex asgard archaea, but resonate well with early warnings regarding overinterpretations of metagenome data (Dey et al., 2016).

Eukaryogenesis models rapidly adapted to the discovery of asgard archaea. They now focus on FECA with various speculations regarding the roles of the discovered genes in host biology prior to endosymbiosis. While the level of cellular complexity is not always explicitly declared, several cases can be made out that depict FECA without an endosymbiont (Baum and Baum, 2020; Dacks et al., 2016; Eme et al., 2017; Pittis and Gabaldón, 2016; Vosseberg et al., 2021). Some models can be interpreted one way or the other (Imachi et al., 2020), while some explicitly state that the host cell was a bona fide prokaryote and that eukaryotic traits and biology evolved after endosymbiosis (Gould et al., 2016; López-García and Moreira, 2020; Wu et al., 2022). Notably, the differences among these models rest upon a few dozen genes from the pan-asgard archaeal genome repertoire, whose overall unique contribution to the roots of eukaryotes was 0.3% or less (Knopp et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). Sources and timing of gene acquisition in the FECA to LECA transition are equally essential to correctly quantify as they remain hard to predict.

Entangled branches connecting kingdoms

Among eukaryotic genomes there are more genes of bacterial than of archaeal origin (Alvarez-Ponce et al., 2013; Brueckner and Martin, 2020; Makarova et al., 2005). An autogenous origin of cellular complexity on the basis of an archaeal (host) source alone would predict the opposite but prokaryotes are characterized by mosaic genomes due to horizontal gene transfer (HGT) whose contribution to cellular complexity prior to endosymbiosis is debated (Martin et al., 2017b; Pittis and Gabaldón, 2016). Claims concerning differential loss of genes in extant archaea (Koonin and Yutin, 2014; Eme et al., 2017) are at odds with pangenomes that support a pan-asgard concept (Knopp et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). Dynamic genomes and the time passed since eukaryote origin challenge phylogenomic approaches and can skew interpretations including the timing of compartment origin. The estimated timing of gene duplications that depend on molecular clock techniques that are error-prone (Graur and Martin, 2004; Rodríguez-Trelles et al., 2001; Tiley et al., 2020) with respect to the origins of cellular complexity are also debated (Tria et al., 2021; Vosseberg et al., 2021). A reliance purely on relative branch lengths concluded that mitochondrial metabolism and the ER in eukaryogenesis ensued the origin of the nucleus (Pittis and Gabaldón, 2016). The method used has been questioned (Martin et al., 2017a), and the use of unspecific COG (cluster of orthologous genes) annotations in the study is problematic. The few universal proteins listed might operate in the present-day nucleus, but provide little to no evidence for the presence of one prior to endosymbiosis. Proteins of the nuclear pore complex, of which there are about three dozen (Raices and D’Angelo, 2012), were not identified or discussed, nor was the fact that the nucleus is a specialized compartment of the ER from which it forms during cell division (Anderson and Hetzer, 2008). Substitution rates that challenge molecular clock studies vary substantially across species (Baer et al., 2007; Halligan and Keightley, 2009) and the functional unit a protein is associated with (Hartwell et al., 1999). Considering that thousands of new protein families emerged at eukaryote origin that fall into such categories (Preisner et al., 2018) further highlights the caution with which we need to digest molecular clock studies on eukaryogenesis.

The distribution of protein families associated with eukaryotic traits across the domains of life is always telling. Seventy percent or more protein families involved in major eukaryotic traits (such as cell cycle, meiosis, autophagy, nucleus) are specific to eukaryotes, 10–15% (e.g. kinases) are universal across all domains of life, 10–15% are bacterial (e.g. aminopeptidases, mTOR interacting proteins, glycosyltransferases), and a small fraction appear to originate from archaea (DNA licensing proteins of cell cycle, ARG GTPases, N-glycan biosynthesis). The distribution of protein families across prokaryotes and eukaryotes (Figure 2) confirms that eukaryotes acquired genes from bacterial or archaeal sources and co-opted them to suit new eukaryotic traits evolving in the FECA to LECA transition, but the majority of protein families involved in eukaryotic cellular complexity are absent across the entire realm of prokaryotic diversity (Brunk and Martin, 2019; Dell et al., 2010; Knopp et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Lombard, 2016). Hence, HGT falls short at explaining the pro- to eukaryote transition with respect to the origin of thousands of eukaryote-unique gene families and a reason for their positive selection in the absence of an endosymbiont. Beyond question, HGT fed into eukaryogenesis – after all, the eukaryotic cell is the product of two prokaryotes – but endosymbiotic partners bring along thousands of genes and many were integrated into the host genome (Timmis et al., 2004). They can explain the pronounced non-alphaproteobacterial signal among proteins supporting eukaryotic traits, especially if we place mitochondrial origin at the root of the FECA and accept HGT to be prevalent.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Phylogenetic trees built using concatenated gene sequences boost phylogenetic signals, but under the premise that the individual genes used recapitulate the evolutionary history of the species (Robinson and Foulds, 1981). For incomplete and contaminated metagenomes (including early releases of asgard archaeal ones), the individual ribosomal gene trees were incongruent (Garg et al., 2021). Similar to simulated chimeric genomes containing genes from different species, metagenome assembled genomes are prone to assembly and binning artefacts. The frequent use of automated pipelines and poorly fitting phylogenetic models exacerbates the risk of drawing false conclusions from metagenome data (Williams and Embley, 2014). For instance, the presence of glycerol-3-phosphate lipids in asgard archaea was claimed (with far-reaching implications on the lipid transition during eukaryogenesis) based on the predicted presence of enzymes involved in the synthesis of ester-linked fatty acids (Villanueva et al., 2017). No evidence of such lipids, however, was found in the biochemical analysis of a cultured asgard archaeon (Imachi et al., 2020) and the presence of the set of required enzymes in asgard archaea has yet to be identified. Better assembly methods result in more complete circular genomes from both axenic culture and metagenomic approaches that mitigate issues of tree congruence (Garg et al., 2021), albeit leaving the same room for interpretations.

Underpinning studies of evolutionary history are phylogenetic trees and theories behind constructing and interpreting them. While it is well beyond the scope of this manuscript to discuss all the vagaries of the field of cladistics and modern phylogenies, it is increasingly evident that many phylogenetic studies have moved from a field that requires expertise in biology to a field that requires expertise in computation (Fitzhugh, 2016) – hypotheses generated from DNA sequences run the risk of taking precedence over morphological evidence (Wheeler et al., 2013). This is less of a critique than a realization. Although sequencing and computational techniques have made significant progress over the years, for the timescales dealt with in early evolution, most issues and challenges remain. It is critical to remember that phylogenetic trees are hypotheses on the evolutionary relationship between organisms and not an observation on itself (Hennig, 2000). No phylogenetic tree is perfect, few are for eternity, and no tree alone will ever satisfy the need for empirical evidence.

Eukaryotic traits in light of accommodating a prokaryotic endosymbiont

‘In the case of living machinery, the ‘designer’ is unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker’ (Richard Dawkins).

Evolution is typically understood to progress gradually and randomly through mutations and the selection of beneficial traits vertically across generations (Darwin and Murray, 1859; Futuyma, 1986). Endosymbiosis adds a massive horizontal component to evolution that is, however, still subject to the basic selection and fixation process. In other words, while the emergence of eukaryotic traits was gradual, the selective pressure that demanded their emergence was more radical. It is this duality that stands between eukaryogenesis theories like a firewall. Any hypothesis that pictures an archaeal lineage transitioning from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cell biology – even of an intermediate type – in the absence of an endosymbiont needs to explain why it was a singularity. Microbial syntrophy is the norm and so is the selective pressure to optimize it. Why are intermediate cell types not observed among the many syntrophic prokaryotes studied, if it was not for the lack of an endosymbiotic event? A mitochondrion-lacking but complex FECA explains eukaryotic traits solely from a host perspective and misses to provide a plausible reason for selection and the emergence and fixation of traits we here discuss in more detail (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

The ER and Golgi apparatus

Glycosyltransferases are promiscuous enzymes and it has been suggested they are separated through ER-Golgi compartmentalization for that reason (Biswas and Thattai, 2020). N- and O-glycosylation are ubiquitous in eukaryotic cells, but not so in prokaryotes. Eukaryotic N-glycosylation is likely derived from the archaeal ancestor, while O-glycosylation is more prevalent among bacteria (Abu-Qarn et al., 2008; Dell et al., 2010; Jarrell et al., 2014). Hence, if each pathway stems from one of the prokaryotic partners, natural selection would foster a spatial separation only upon and not prior to endosymbiosis. The ER lumen and mitochondrial intramembrane space (the former bacterial periplasm) share notable homologies. This includes calcium storage (Dominguez, 2004; Raffaello et al., 2016), disulfide relay systems (Backes et al., 2019), and redox balance (Cardenas-Rodriguez and Tokatlidis, 2017). The contact sites of the ER and mitochondrion are cornerstones for the synthesis and regulation of lipids and a plethora of cellular roles (Booth et al., 2016; Flis and Daum, 2013; Friedman et al., 2011; Hamasaki et al., 2013). This could be a consequence of the ER stemming from mitochondrial-derived vesicles (MDVs) (Gould et al., 2016). MDVs could have provided the necessary endomembrane material for compartmentalization and remain the most plausible source for the lipid transition from ether-linked, archaeal head groups to ester-linked (bacterial) eukaryotic head groups. Much on the origin of the endomembrane system remains a speculation, but not so the existence of MDVs, their role in eukaryotic biology, and how they induce compartment formation (Schuler et al., 2021; Sugiura et al., 2017; Sugiura et al., 2014; Yamashita et al., 2016). Eukaryogenesis models failing to acknowledge their existence miss a biological fact with significant explanatory power.

Vesicle trafficking

Vesicle secretion from the plasma membrane into the environment is a common trait of all cells. Unique to eukaryotes are the many ways with which they can internalize membrane vesicles of various sizes, ranging from clathrin-mediated endocytosis (~100 nm) to phagocytosis (>750 nm), using different molecular machineries. Intracellular vesicle trafficking connects the plasma membrane with the endomembrane system and the compartments thereof among each other. All compartments that define the endomembrane system – with the ER at its core – as well as the majority of regulatory and structural proteins are conserved across eukaryotes and absent in prokaryotes (Klinger et al., 2016; Kontou et al., 2022).

The nucleus

The nucleus is a distinctive extension of the ER and forms from the latter after mitosis (Anderson and Hetzer, 2008) using homologs of ESRCT complex (Olmos et al., 2015). It separates transcription from translation and is the site of pre-ribosome assembly (Peña et al., 2017). As with any trait, a selective reason for its presence must outweigh the costs for its maintenance; consider, for example, the exchange of mRNA and effectors with the cytoplasm (Nerurkar et al., 2015; Warner, 1999). A plausible selection could have been imposed by the transfer of group II introns from the endosymbiont that drove the origin of eukaryotic splicing and need for separating transcription slowed by the spliceosome from fast translation (Martin and Koonin, 2006). Mitochondria-early scenarios provide both the problem (group II introns that need to be spliced) and the solution (MDVs that might have given rise to the ER) (Gould et al., 2016).

Sex and meiosis

The prokaryotic solution to prevent mutational overload through Muller’s ratchet is HGT (Muller, 1964). The nucleus renders the eukaryotic cytoplasm almost sterile of DNA (preventing HGT), wherein it plays a regulatory immune function (Abe et al., 2019; Paludan and Bowie, 2013). The eukaryotic solution was ploidy, multinucleated cells and reciprocal recombination through meiosis (Garg and Martin, 2016). A multinucleated state is readily achieved by decoupling nuclear from cell division, a mechanism commonly observed in prokaryotes wherein the DNA replicates independently of the cell before portioning into daughter cells (Haeusser and Levin, 2008). The syncytial theory for eukaryotic origin (Garg and Martin, 2016) posits that by virtue of multinucleated cells within a singular archaeal host, multiplying bacterial symbionts are free to lose genes via endosymbiotic gene transfer to the multiple copies of the host nucleus/nuclear material in the cytoplasm to explore various configurations under the constant onslaught of group II introns, yet retaining fitness by compensating viable mRNA in-trans within the same shared cytoplasm. The explanatory power of this model is twofold: (i) it explains how homologous recombination – which subsequently evolved to meiosis as we understand it today – was necessary to maintain viable copies of undisrupted genes, while simultaneously maintaining the presence of bacterial transferred genes, and (ii), it explains the monophyly of eukaryotes. As long as the FECA to LECA transition continued, the multitude of host nuclei remained within a single confined cytoplasm until the fittest version was optimized via various rounds of endo-meiosis and homologous recombination. Any origin of cell division and/or cell cycle might have given rise to gamete-like spores that separated off the original syncytium. In cases where a successful combination was released through ESCRT-driven scission (see below), a similar process applies for further optimization. In scenarios in which the budded off cell (gamete) was fitter than the syncytium, it would outcompete the original syncytium or alternatively would be outcompeted when it contained aberrant genomes. In either case, the singularity of LECA is well explained by the syncytial model of the FECA to LECA transition (Garg and Martin, 2016; Skejo et al., 2021).

Meiosis in itself is ancient, ubiquitous, and the central process that imparts an advantage to sex in eukaryotes (Colnaghi et al., 2022; Colnaghi et al., 2020; Malik et al., 2008; Speijer et al., 2015). Several theories place mito-nuclear interactions, heteroplasmy, and mitochondrial ROS as drivers of eukaryotic sex (Colnaghi et al., 2020; Hörandl and Speijer, 2018; Radzvilavicius and Blackstone, 2015). HGT alone was insufficient for LECA to escape Mullers ratchet in the absence of homologous recombination (Colnaghi et al., 2022), when considering expanding genome size and repeat sequence frequency. Everything points to an origin of sex and meiosis necessitated by the presence of mitochondria. Moreover, sex, as a trait, restricts the number of potential mating partners (by 1/number of sex types), and it is hence less surprising that it did not evolve in groups outside of eukaryotes, but had to in the FECA.

Peroxisomes

The majority of enzymes of peroxisomal beta-oxidation are of alphaproteobacterial origin (Bolte et al., 2015) and peroxisomes might have evolved to compartmentalize ROS-producing beta-oxidation and protect the mitochondrial genome (Speijer, 2017). De novo biosynthesis of peroxisomes involves MDVs with integrated Pex3 and Pex14 that fuse with ER-derived vesicles containing Pex16 (Sugiura et al., 2017), and the compartment for beta-oxidation appears absent in species lacking respiring mitochondria (Le et al., 2020). Peroxisomes not only make sense in the presence of a mitochondrion, they are also partly a product thereof (Mohanty and McBride, 2013; Sugiura et al., 2017).

Autophagy

Cytosolic protein homeostasis in prokaryotes is performed by proteases and proteasomes, which are common to both archaea and bacteria. Defective membrane proteins and membranes are shed by mechanisms similar to bacterial outer membrane vesicle secretion (Schwechheimer and Kuehn, 2015). Eukaryotes utilize membrane-bound compartments in the form of autophagosomes, also for recycling membranes including their proteins (Nakatogawa, 2020). Mitophagy removes damaged mitochondria and is initiated by ER-mitochondrial contact sites (Hamasaki et al., 2013). It is a trait needed in the presence of large intracellular compartments and the occasional yet inevitable breakdown of organelles that require immediate containment (Anding and Baehrecke, 2017).

Cell division

The eukaryotic cell cycle is a series of choreographed steps that leads to the correct portioning of genetic material, endomembrane, and organelles to both daughter cells (Harashima et al., 2013). The presence of a nuclear compartment and an endosymbiont are incompatible with binary fission in the absence of orchestrated replication and organelle and compartment division, and cytokinesis. As mentioned in the previous section, in prokaryotes the nuclear material (genome) replicates independently of cell division, which would have facilitated the formation of syncytial populations (Haeusser and Levin, 2008). During this time, however, we speculate that mitochondrial metabolism started playing a more significant role in controlling cell division, given the role of nutrient availability in coordination of cell division. The G1 phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle results in the mitochondria as the master regulator for S/G2 progression (Antico Arciuch et al., 2012; Mitra et al., 2009), suggestive of a deep link between mitochondria and the cell cycle and one that would have been difficult to integrate into a pre-existing one. Eukaryotic cell division employs the use of ESCRT homologs and actin in contrast to bacterial division mechanisms involving FtsZs from which also tubulin evolved (Christ et al., 2016; Goliand et al., 2014; Stoten and Carlton, 2018). This suggests the evolution of an independent pathway for cell division involving ESCRT proteins consistent with their role in archaeal cell division (Tarrason Risa et al., 2020), one that was based on outer membrane vesicle secretion, but this time packaging mitochondria and the nucleus/genetic material, the latter similar to a role of prokaryotic OMVs (Schwechheimer and Kuehn, 2015). Understanding how these pre-existing mechanisms were leveraged in an elaborate checkpoint system of the eukaryotic cell cycle remains to be elucidated.

One might consider the cytoskeleton another eukaryotic trait, but this is more involved. The eukaryotic cytoskeleton rests on three main pillars: (i) actin and associated proteins, (ii) tubulin and associated proteins, and (iii) the utterly diverse intermediate filament (IF) proteins. Components of each pillar, sometimes also in combination, can be found in archaea and bacteria alike (Duggin et al., 2015; Larsen et al., 2007; Preisner et al., 2018; van den Ent et al., 2001; Wickstead and Gull, 2011; Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka et al., 2017). As with many things in eukaryogenesis, it is the intricate combination and universal presence of all three cytoskeletal pillars and the dynamic nature which they are used in eukaryotes that is characteristic. The latter is best demonstrated by the rapid switch in motility between actin-based gliding and tubulin-based flagella-driven swimming in many protists, likely also a feature of the LECA (Fritz-Laylin et al., 2010; Kusdian et al., 2013; Preisner et al., 2018). Basic components were derived from the host cell, such as gelsolin-regulated actin filaments (Akıl et al., 2020) and evolution co-opted such mechanisms en route to LECA. It is conceivable that with expanding cell size, increased intracellular complexity and the need of an orchestrated cell cycle, the selection for a dynamic but simultaneously in parts rigid cytoskeleton increased, which triggered the expansion of the IF protein family required for mechanical support, and the origin of additional accessory proteins and regulatory mechanisms that are absent in prokaryotes.

The identification and subsequent characterizations of asgard archaea have done the following for eukaryogenesis: (i) They underpin the syntrophic origin of eukaryotes involving two prokaryotic partners and (ii) provide support for a 2D tree of life (i.e. two domains of life, bacteria and archaea, evolved from the origin of life and eukaryotes emerged from within archaea after endosymbiosis of an alphaproteobacterial partner). (iii) They provide no evidence for the presence of bacterial-type ester-linked lipids in asgard archaea, (iv) reject a complex archaeal ancestor necessary to explain the patchy distribution of eukaryogenesis-relevant gene families (Wu et al., 2022), and (v) show that the asgard archaeal set of genes before unique to eukaryotes closes the gap to the number of gene families encoded by eukaryotes by only 0.3% (Knopp et al., 2021) or less (Liu et al., 2021). Hence, with respect to explaining the origin of eukaryotic traits and a rationale for their universal presence in eukaryotes, the asgard archaea and their syntrophic bacterial partners support and place us at scenarios that were submitted some 25 years ago (Martin and Müller, 1998; Moreira, 1998; Vellai and Vida, 1999).

Considering syntrophy as a key ecological parameter in eukaryogenesis was an early notion that has stood the test of time (Imachi et al., 2020; López-García and Moreira, 2020; López-García and Moreira, 2019; Sousa et al., 2016; Spang et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2022). Ever since, observations from the field of microbial ecology, genomics, and geology continue to encourage us to picture eukaryogenesis to have occurred within a microbial mat, where multiple species thrive in close proximity and ample syntrophies exchanging substrates such as H₂/electrons under limited or no oxygen (López-García and Moreira, 2020). Recent advances in geochemistry added new support to the proposal that eukaryogenesis occurred in anoxic niches with a preferred shift towards aerobic metabolism being a secondarily derived state (Mills et al., 2022) and so do the culturing conditions of Prometheoarchaeon (Imachi et al., 2020). Such prokaryotic consortia can source genes through HGT from pangenomes of other bacteria and (asgard) archaea and the virosphere that also contributed to the birth of the eukaryotic genome (Spang et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022). Evidently, however, most eukaryotic protein families evolved during the FECA to LECA transition and selective pressures due to endosymbiosis were likely key.

To conclude, physiological and phylogenomic studies support a mitochondria-early scenario and so does cell biology (Figure 3). Claiming mitochondria were of little importance in eukaryogenesis contradicts the simultaneous claim that intermediates lacking mitochondria all went extinct – an oxymoron that suggests that the mitochondrial endosymbiont contributed little in the FECA to LECA transition, while its presence was vital for the survival of FECA during eukaryogenesis.

On being the right size in eukaryogenesis

‘The most obvious differences between different animals are differences of size, but for some reason the zoologists have paid singularly little attention to them’ (John BS Haldane).

Haldane began his influential essay by addressing a lack of scale bars in zoology books. One can point to a similar issue regarding eukaryogenesis, in which models often depict cells not changing in size up to scale in the course of the FECA to LECA transition (Baum and Baum, 2020; Gould et al., 2016; Spang et al., 2019). Though not intentional, this is important. In eukaryogenesis we are dealing with at least a 10 times increase in cell diameter, with known consequences regarding cell volume, morphology, and molecular diffusion limits among other factors (Young, 2006). Engulfing a proteobacterium with a surface area of 10 µm² requires 10 times the surface area of the asgard archaeon Prometheoarchaeon. For a typical protist it is only 1% of its surface area. Putting scales on a recent model, the entangle-engulf-endogenize mode (Imachi et al., 2020) brings forth details worthy considering: an observed tubular protrusion requires 12% of cytoplasm for a 50% increase in surface area interacting with syntrophic partners (Figure 4). Four to six protrusions approximately result in the doubling of cytosolic volume, maybe explaining why Prometheoarchaeon has not been observed to produce more than six protrusion per cell.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Such protrusions might have been relevant for the uptake of the symbiont, but the surface area of such a protrusion is 3% that of a proteobacterium. Entangling a proteobacterium entirely would take at minimum 50 protrusions, the cost of which is six times the cytoplasmic volume and not considering the multitude of proteins needed for recognition, surface attachment, and the processes thereof. We also note that we know neither of a case in nature where tubular-like extensions (allowing nutrient exchange) fuse to sheets (allowing cell engulfment), nor can we imagine how this would work on a molecular level, respecting membrane biology, and in 3D. Considering scale bars or tubular versus sheet-like membrane biology is not intended to disprove any model, but it highlights potential issues and also reminds us of the question of when and how did the size increase in the FECA to LECA transition.

A feed forward loop supporting an increase in cell size

‘The higher animals are not larger than the lower because they are more complicated. They are more complicated because they are larger’ (John BS Haldane).

Haldane noted that an elephant has to be as complicated as an elephant, because it is as large as an elephant. Across eukaryotes, an increase in cell size (1000–10,000 times) and morphological complexity is common, matched by a comparable increase in genome size. The upper end of bacterial genomes is 15 Mb (Land et al., 2015), that of (haploid) eukaryote is around 130 Bb (Pellicer et al., 2010). What drove this increase in cell and genome size during eukaryogenesis (Figure 5)?

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

In prokaryotes ATP production is limited by the available cell surface. This limits the replication rate and imposes negative selection on genome expansion (Lane, 2007). Conversely, in mitochondria powered eukaryotes, energetic efficiency increases with cell size (Hochachka et al., 2003; Lane, 2007), imposing a positive selection. Increased cell size in eukaryotes means increased DNA content to maintain the karyoplasmic ratio (Cavalier-Smith, 2005; Cavalier-Smith, 1985), which is positively selected for (Lane, 2007). Through this, and remembering that the endosymbiont provided the host cell with both problems and solutions (main text), one can speculate on mechanisms and a selective pressures for the emergence of eukaryotic cell biology, cell and genome size during the FECA to LECA trajectory.

Endosymbiosis provided an influx of endosymbiotic genes and membrane material. An early endomembrane system with minimal protein content, for example, proteins that are likely to be packed for secretion via OMVs, etc., emerged and the nucleus formed for reasons discussed in the main text. Constant fusion of endosymbiont-derived vesicles with the archaeal host provided a mechanism for the lipid shift and compartment origin (Gould et al., 2016), which might have fostered an increase in cell size. Integration of endosymbiotic DNA provided one early mechanism for why the genome size increased, together with duplication events (Kelly, 2021; Tria et al., 2021; Van de Peer et al., 2009). The ongoing concentration of ATP synthesis to mitochondria imposed positive selection on cell size, which allowed for a further increase in genome size. A feed-forward process of increased cell size stipulating increased genome size and vice versa commenced that was supported by an emerging endomembrane system and intracellular transport that counteracted the molecular diffusion limit (Figure 5). It provided ground for new combinations of genes to emerge and expressed (Lane and Martin, 2010) and increased cell size accommodated experimental expression of new proteins in the cytosol (Dill et al., 2011). This presented an opportunity – almost unlimited in theory – for the origin of new protein families and complex traits. Considering that most of these new inventions revolve around the endosymbiont (Figure 3), suggests it drove the selection for their emergence and fixation. Haldane might have put it this way: the LECA got larger because it was complex and it became complex because it was larger.

1. 1. Abe T
   2. Marutani Y
   3. Shoji I

   (2019) Cytosolic DNA-sensing immune response and viral infection

   Microbiology and Immunology 63:51–64.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/1348-0421.12669

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Abu-Qarn M
   2. Giordano A
   3. Battaglia F
   4. Trauner A
   5. Hitchen PG
   6. Morris HR
   7. Dell A
   8. Eichler J

   (2008) Identification of agle, a second glycosyltransferase involved in N glycosylation of the Haloferax volcanii S-layer glycoprotein

   Journal of Bacteriology 190:3140–3146.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00056-08

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Akıl C
   2. Robinson RC

   (2018) Genomes of asgard archaea encode Profilins that regulate actin

   Nature 562:439–443.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0548-6

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Akıl C
   2. Tran LT
   3. Orhant-Prioux M
   4. Baskaran Y
   5. Manser E
   6. Blanchoin L
   7. Robinson RC

   (2020) Insights into the evolution of regulated actin dynamics via characterization of primitive gelsolin/cofilin proteins from asgard archaea

   PNAS 117:19904–19913.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009167117

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Allen JF

   (2015) Why chloroplasts and mitochondria retain their own genomes and genetic systems: colocation for redox regulation of gene expression

   PNAS 112:10231–10238.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500012112

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Alvarez-Ponce D
   2. Lopez P
   3. Bapteste E
   4. McInerney JO

   (2013) Gene similarity networks provide tools for understanding eukaryote origins and evolution

   PNAS 110:E1594–E1603.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211371110

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Anderson DJ
   2. Hetzer MW

   (2008) Shaping the endoplasmic reticulum into the nuclear envelope

   Journal of Cell Science 121:137–142.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.005777

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Anding AL
   2. Baehrecke EH

   (2017) Cleaning house: selective autophagy of organelles

   Developmental Cell 41:10–22.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2017.02.016

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Antico Arciuch VG
   2. Elguero ME
   3. Poderoso JJ
   4. Carreras MC

   (2012) Mitochondrial regulation of cell cycle and proliferation

   Antioxidants & Redox Signaling 16:1150–1180.

   https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2011.4085

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Backes S
    2. Garg SG
    3. Becker L
    4. Peleh V
    5. Glockshuber R
    6. Gould SB
    7. Herrmann JM

    (2019) Development of the mitochondrial intermembrane space disulfide relay represents a critical step in eukaryotic evolution

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 36:742–756.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msz011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Baer CF
    2. Miyamoto MM
    3. Denver DR

    (2007) Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 8:619–631.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2158

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bar YM
    2. Phillips R
    3. Milo R

    (2018) The biomass distribution on earth

    PNAS 115:6506–6511.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Barbrook AC
    2. Howe CJ
    3. Purton S

    (2006) Why are plastid genomes retained in non-photosynthetic organisms?

    Trends in Plant Science 11:101–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2005.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Baum B
    2. Baum DA

    (2020) The merger that made us

    BMC Biology 18:1–4.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-020-00806-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Biswas A
    2. Thattai M

    (2020) Promiscuity and specificity of eukaryotic glycosyltransferases

    Biochemical Society Transactions 48:891–900.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20190651

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Bolte K
    2. Rensing SA
    3. Maier UG

    (2015) The evolution of eukaryotic cells from the perspective of peroxisomes: phylogenetic analyses of peroxisomal beta-oxidation enzymes support mitochondria-first models of eukaryotic cell evolution

    BioEssays 37:195–203.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201400151

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Booth DM
    2. Enyedi B
    3. Geiszt M
    4. Várnai P
    5. Hajnóczky G

    (2016) Redox nanodomains are induced by and control calcium signaling at the ER-mitochondrial interface

    Molecular Cell 63:240–248.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.05.040

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Brocchieri L
    2. Karlin S

    (2005) Protein length in eukaryotic and prokaryotic proteomes

    Nucleic Acids Research 33:3390–3400.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gki615

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Brueckner J
    2. Martin WF

    (2020) Bacterial genes outnumber archaeal genes in eukaryotic genomes

    Genome Biology and Evolution 12:282–292.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evaa047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Brunk CF
    2. Martin WF

    (2019) Archaeal histone contributions to the origin of eukaryotes

    Trends in Microbiology 27:703–714.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2019.04.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Burki F
    2. Roger AJ
    3. Brown MW
    4. Simpson AGB

    (2020) The new tree of eukaryotes

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 35:43–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.08.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Cardenas-Rodriguez M
    2. Tokatlidis K

    (2017) Cytosolic redox components regulate protein homeostasis via additional localisation in the mitochondrial intermembrane space

    FEBS Letters 591:2661–2670.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.12766

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. Book

    1. Cavalier-Smith T

    (1985)

    The Evolution of Genome Size

    Chichester: John Wiley.

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Cavalier-Smith T

    (1987) Eukaryotes with no mitochondria

    Nature 326:332–333.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/326332a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Cavalier-Smith T

    (2005) Economy, speed and size matter: evolutionary forces driving nuclear genome miniaturization and expansion

    Annals of Botany 95:147–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci010

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Christ L
    2. Wenzel EM
    3. Liestøl K
    4. Raiborg C
    5. Campsteijn C
    6. Stenmark H

    (2016) Alix and ESCRT-I/II function as parallel ESCRT-III recruiters in cytokinetic abscission

    The Journal of Cell Biology 212:499–513.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201507009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Colnaghi M
    2. Lane N
    3. Pomiankowski A

    (2020) Genome expansion in early eukaryotes drove the transition from lateral gene transfer to meiotic sex

    eLife 9:e58873.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58873

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Colnaghi M
    2. Lane N
    3. Pomiankowski A

    (2022) Repeat sequences limit the effectiveness of lateral gene transfer and favored the evolution of meiotic sex in early eukaryotes

    PNAS 119:1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2205041119

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Dacks JB
    2. Field MC
    3. Buick R
    4. Eme L
    5. Gribaldo S
    6. Roger AJ
    7. Brochier-Armanet C
    8. Devos DP

    (2016) The changing view of eukaryogenesis-fossils, cells, lineages and how they all come together

    Journal of Cell Science 129:3695–3703.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.178566

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. Book

    1. Darwin C
    2. Murray J

    (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

    London: William Clowes and Sons.

    https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.82303

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Deatherage BL
    2. Cookson BT

    (2012) Membrane vesicle release in bacteria, eukaryotes, and archaea: a conserved yet underappreciated aspect of microbial life

    Infection and Immunity 80:1948–1957.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.06014-11

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Dell A
    2. Galadari A
    3. Sastre F
    4. Hitchen P

    (2010) Similarities and differences in the glycosylation mechanisms in prokaryotes and eukaryotes

    International Journal of Microbiology 2010:148178.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/148178

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Dey G
    2. Thattai M
    3. Baum B

    (2016) On the archaeal origins of eukaryotes and the challenges of inferring phenotype from genotype

    Trends in Cell Biology 26:476–485.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2016.03.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Dill KA
    2. Ghosh K
    3. Schmit JD

    (2011) Physical limits of cells and proteomes

    PNAS 108:17876–17882.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114477108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Dominguez DC

    (2004) Calcium signalling in bacteria

    Molecular Microbiology 54:291–297.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2958.2004.04276.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Duggin IG
    2. Aylett CHS
    3. Walsh JC
    4. Michie KA
    5. Wang Q
    6. Turnbull L
    7. Dawson EM
    8. Harry EJ
    9. Whitchurch CB
    10. Amos LA
    11. Löwe J

    (2015) CetZ tubulin-like proteins control archaeal cell shape

    Nature 519:362–365.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13983

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Eme L
    2. Spang A
    3. Lombard J
    4. Stairs CW
    5. Ettema TJG

    (2017) Archaea and the origin of eukaryotes

    Nature Reviews. Microbiology 15:711–723.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.133

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Eyre-Walker A
    2. Keightley PD

    (2007) The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 8:610–618.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2146

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Fenchel T

    (2014) Respiration in heterotrophic unicellular eukaryotic organisms

    Protist 165:485–492.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2014.05.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Fitzhugh K

    (2016) Sequence data, phylogenetic inference, and implications of downward causation

    Acta Biotheoretica 64:133–160.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-016-9277-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Flis V
    2. Daum G

    (2013) Lipid transport between the endoplasmic

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 5:1–22.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a013235

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Fox GE
    2. Stackebrandt E
    3. Hespell RB
    4. Gibson J
    5. Maniloff J
    6. Dyer TA
    7. Wolfe RS
    8. Balch WE
    9. Tanner RS
    10. Magrum LJ
    11. Zablen LB
    12. Blakemore R
    13. Gupta R
    14. Bonen L
    15. Lewis BJ
    16. Stahl DA
    17. Luehrsen KR
    18. Chen KN
    19. Woese CR

    (1980) The phylogeny of prokaryotes

    Science 209:457–463.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6771870

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Friedman JR
    2. Lackner LL
    3. West M
    4. DiBenedetto JR
    5. Nunnari J
    6. Voeltz GK

    (2011) Er tubules mark sites of mitochondrial division

    Science 334:358–362.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207385

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Fritz-Laylin LK
    2. Prochnik SE
    3. Ginger ML
    4. Dacks JB
    5. Carpenter ML
    6. Field MC
    7. Kuo A
    8. Paredez A
    9. Chapman J
    10. Pham J
    11. Shu S
    12. Neupane R
    13. Cipriano M
    14. Mancuso J
    15. Tu H
    16. Salamov A
    17. Lindquist E
    18. Shapiro H
    19. Lucas S
    20. Grigoriev IV
    21. Cande WZ
    22. Fulton C
    23. Rokhsar DS
    24. Dawson SC

    (2010) The genome of Naegleria gruberi illuminates early eukaryotic versatility

    Cell 140:631–642.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.032

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Fujimoto M
    2. Tsutsumi N

    (2014) Dynamin-Related proteins in plant post-Golgi traffic

    Frontiers in Plant Science 5:408.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00408

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. Book

    1. Futuyma DJ

    (1986)

    Evolutionary Biology

    Springer.

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Garg SG
    2. Martin WF

    (2016) Mitochondria, the cell cycle, and the origin of sex via a syncytial eukaryote common ancestor

    Genome Biology and Evolution 8:1950–1970.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evw136

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Garg SG
    2. Kapust N
    3. Lin W
    4. Knopp M
    5. Tria FDK
    6. Nelson-Sathi S
    7. Gould SB
    8. Fan L
    9. Zhu R
    10. Zhang C
    11. Martin WF

    (2021) Anomalous phylogenetic behavior of ribosomal proteins in metagenome-assembled asgard archaea

    Genome Biology and Evolution 13:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evaa238

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Gerlitz M
    2. Knopp M
    3. Kapust N
    4. Xavier JC
    5. Martin WF

    (2018) Elusive data underlying debate at the prokaryote-eukaryote divide

    Biology Direct 13:1–12.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-018-0221-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Goliand I
    2. Nachmias D
    3. Gershony O
    4. Elia N

    (2014) Inhibition of ESCRT-II-CHMP6 interactions impedes cytokinetic abscission and leads to cell death

    Molecular Biology of the Cell 25:3740–3748.

    https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E14-08-1317

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Gould SB
    2. Garg SG
    3. Martin WF

    (2016) Bacterial vesicle secretion and the evolutionary origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system

    Trends in Microbiology 24:525–534.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.03.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Graur D
    2. Martin W

    (2004) Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision

    Trends in Genetics 20:80–86.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2003.12.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Guy L
    2. Ettema TJG

    (2011) The archaeal “ tack ” superphylum and the origin of eukaryotes

    Trends in Microbiology 19:580–587.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2011.09.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Haeusser DP
    2. Levin PA

    (2008) The great divide: coordinating cell cycle events during bacterial growth and division

    Current Opinion in Microbiology 11:94–99.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2008.02.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Halligan DL
    2. Keightley PD

    (2009) Spontaneous mutation accumulation studies in evolutionary genetics

    Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40:151–172.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173437

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Hamasaki M
    2. Furuta N
    3. Matsuda A
    4. Nezu A
    5. Yamamoto A
    6. Fujita N
    7. Oomori H
    8. Noda T
    9. Haraguchi T
    10. Hiraoka Y
    11. Amano A
    12. Yoshimori T

    (2013) Autophagosomes form at ER-mitochondria contact sites

    Nature 495:389–393.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11910

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Hampl V
    2. Čepička I
    3. Eliáš M

    (2019) Was the mitochondrion necessary to start eukaryogenesis?

    Trends in Microbiology 27:96–104.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2018.10.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Harashima H
    2. Dissmeyer N
    3. Schnittger A

    (2013) Cell cycle control across the eukaryotic Kingdom

    Trends in Cell Biology 23:345–356.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2013.03.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. Book

    1. Harold FM

    (1986)

    The Vital Force: A Study of Bioenergetics

    W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd.

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Hartwell LH
    2. Hopfield JJ
    3. Leibler S
    4. Murray AW

    (1999) Hartwell et al 199

    Nature 402:C47–C52.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35011540

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. Book

    1. Hennig W.

    (2000)

    Phylogenetic Systematics

    University of Illinois Press.

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Hjort K
    2. Goldberg AV
    3. Tsaousis AD
    4. Hirt RP
    5. Embley TM

    (2010) Diversity and reductive evolution of mitochondria among microbial eukaryotes

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365:713–727.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0224

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Hochachka PW
    2. Darveau CA
    3. Andrews RD
    4. Suarez RK

    (2003) Allometric cascade: a model for resolving body mass effects on metabolism

    Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part A, Molecular & Integrative Physiology 134:675–691.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1095-6433(02)00364-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Hörandl E
    2. Speijer D

    (2018) How oxygen gave rise to eukaryotic sex

    Proceedings. Biological Sciences 285:20172706.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2706

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Husnik F
    2. Tashyreva D
    3. Boscaro V
    4. George EE
    5. Lukeš J
    6. Keeling PJ

    (2021) Bacterial and archaeal symbioses with protists

    Current Biology 31:R862–R877.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.05.049

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Imachi H
    2. Nobu MK
    3. Nakahara N
    4. Morono Y
    5. Ogawara M
    6. Takaki Y
    7. Takano Y
    8. Uematsu K
    9. Ikuta T
    10. Ito M
    11. Matsui Y
    12. Miyazaki M
    13. Murata K
    14. Saito Y
    15. Sakai S
    16. Song C
    17. Tasumi E
    18. Yamanaka Y
    19. Yamaguchi T
    20. Kamagata Y
    21. Tamaki H
    22. Takai K

    (2020) Isolation of an archaeon at the prokaryote-eukaryote interface

    Nature 577:519–525.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1916-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Ishida H
    2. Izumi M
    3. Wada S
    4. Makino A

    (2014) Biochimica et biophysica acta roles of autophagy in chloroplast recycling ☆

    BBA - Bioenergetics 1837:512–521.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2013.11.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Islinger M
    2. Cardoso MJR
    3. Schrader M

    (2010) Be different—the diversity of peroxisomes in the animal kingdom

    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1803:881–897.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2010.03.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Jarrell KF
    2. Ding Y
    3. Meyer BH
    4. Albers SV
    5. Kaminski L
    6. Eichler J

    (2014) N-Linked glycosylation in Archaea: a structural, functional, and genetic analysis

    Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 78:304–341.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00052-13

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Kafri M
    2. Metzl-Raz E
    3. Jona G
    4. Barkai N

    (2016) The cost of protein production

    Cell Reports 14:22–31.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.12.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Karnkowska A
    2. Vacek V
    3. Zubáčová Z
    4. Treitli SC
    5. Petrželková R
    6. Eme L
    7. Novák L
    8. Žárský V
    9. Barlow LD
    10. Herman EK
    11. Soukal P
    12. Hroudová M
    13. Doležal P
    14. Stairs CW
    15. Roger AJ
    16. Eliáš M
    17. Dacks JB
    18. Vlček Č
    19. Hampl V

    (2016) A eukaryote without a mitochondrial organelle

    Current Biology 26:1274–1284.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.053

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Kelly S

    (2021) The economics of organellar gene loss and endosymbiotic gene transfer

    Genome Biology 22:1–22.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-021-02567-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Klinger CM
    2. Spang A
    3. Dacks JB
    4. Ettema TJG

    (2016) Tracing the archaeal origins of eukaryotic membrane-trafficking system building blocks

    Molecular Biology and Evolution 33:1528–1541.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw034

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Knopp M
    2. Stockhorst S
    3. van der Giezen M
    4. Garg SG
    5. Gould SB

    (2021) The asgard archaeal-unique contribution to protein families of the eukaryotic common ancestor was 0.3

    Genome Biology and Evolution 13:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evab085

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Koga Y
    2. Kyuragi T
    3. Nishihara M
    4. Sone N

    (1998) Did archaeal and bacterial cells arise independently from noncellular precursors? A hypothesis stating that the advent of membrane phospholipid with enantiomeric glycerophosphate backbones caused the separation of the two lines of descent

    Journal of Molecular Evolution 46:54–63.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00006283

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Kontou A
    2. Herman EK
    3. Field MC
    4. Dacks JB
    5. Koumandou VL

    (2022) Evolution of factors shaping the endoplasmic reticulum

    Traffic 23:462–473.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/tra.12863

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Koonin EV
    2. Yutin N

    (2014) The dispersed archaeal eukaryome and the complex archaeal ancestor of eukaryotes

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 6:a016188.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a016188

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Kusdian G
    2. Woehle C
    3. Martin WF
    4. Gould SB

    (2013) The actin‐based machinery of trichomonas vaginalis mediates flagellate‐amoeboid

    Cellular Microbiology 15:1707–1721.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/cmi.12144

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Lahti DC
    2. Johnson NA
    3. Ajie BC
    4. Otto SP
    5. Hendry AP
    6. Blumstein DT
    7. Coss RG
    8. Donohue K
    9. Foster SA

    (2009) Relaxed selection in the wild

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24:487–496.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Land M
    2. Hauser L
    3. Jun SR
    4. Nookaew I
    5. Leuze MR
    6. Ahn TH
    7. Karpinets T
    8. Lund O
    9. Kora G
    10. Wassenaar T
    11. Poudel S
    12. Ussery DW

    (2015) Insights from 20 years of bacterial genome sequencing

    Functional & Integrative Genomics 15:141–161.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10142-015-0433-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. Book

    1. Lane N

    (2007) Mitochondria: key to complexity

    In: Andersson SG, editors. Origin of Mitochondria and Hydrogenosomes. Springer. pp. 13–38.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-38502-8_2

    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Lane N
    2. Martin W

    (2010) The energetics of genome complexity

    Nature 467:929–934.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09486

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Lane N

    (2020) How energy flow shapes cell evolution

    Current Biology 30:R471–R476.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.03.055

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Larsen RA
    2. Cusumano C
    3. Fujioka A
    4. Lim-Fong G
    5. Patterson P
    6. Pogliano J

    (2007) Treadmilling of a prokaryotic tubulin-like protein, TubZ, required for plasmid stability in Bacillus thuringiensis

    Genes & Development 21:1340–1352.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1546107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Le T
    2. Žárský V
    3. Nývltová E
    4. Rada P
    5. Harant K
    6. Vancová M
    7. Verner Z
    8. Hrdý I
    9. Tachezy J

    (2020) Anaerobic peroxisomes in mastigamoeba balamuthi

    PNAS 117:2065–2075.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909755117

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Leão P
    2. Gueiros-Filho FJ
    3. Bazylinski DA
    4. Lins U
    5. Abreu F

    (2018) Association of magnetotactic multicellular prokaryotes with pseudoalteromonas species in a natural lagoon environment

    Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 111:2213–2223.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-018-1113-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Lhee D
    2. Ha J-S
    3. Kim S
    4. Park MG
    5. Bhattacharya D
    6. Yoon HS

    (2019) Evolutionary dynamics of the chromatophore genome in three photosynthetic paulinella species

    Scientific Reports 9:1–11.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38621-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Light DW
    2. Lexchin J

    (2021) The costs of coronavirus vaccines and their pricing

    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 114:502–504.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/01410768211053006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Liu Y
    2. Makarova KS
    3. Huang W-C
    4. Wolf YI
    5. Nikolskaya AN
    6. Zhang X
    7. Cai M
    8. Zhang C-J
    9. Xu W
    10. Luo Z
    11. Cheng L
    12. Koonin EV
    13. Li M

    (2021) Expanded diversity of asgard archaea and their relationships with eukaryotes

    Nature 593:553–557.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03494-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Lombard J

    (2016) The multiple evolutionary origins of the eukaryotic N-glycosylation pathway

    Biology Direct 11:36.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-016-0137-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. López-García P
    2. Moreira D

    (2019) Eukaryogenesis, a syntrophy affair

    Nature Microbiology 4:1068–1070.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0495-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. López-García P
    2. Moreira D

    (2020) The syntrophy hypothesis for the origin of eukaryotes revisited

    Nature Microbiology 5:655–667.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0710-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Lynch M
    2. Marinov GK

    (2017) Membranes, energetics, and evolution across the prokaryote-eukaryote divide

    eLife 6:e20437.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20437

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Makarova KS
    2. Wolf YI
    3. Mekhedov SL
    4. Mirkin BG
    5. Koonin EV

    (2005) Ancestral paralogs and pseudoparalogs and their role in the emergence of the eukaryotic cell

    Nucleic Acids Research 33:4626–4638.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gki775

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Malik SB
    2. Pightling AW
    3. Stefaniak LM
    4. Schurko AM
    5. Logsdon JM

    (2008) An expanded inventory of conserved meiotic genes provides evidence for sex in trichomonas vaginalis

    PLOS ONE 3:e2879.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002879

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Martin W
    2. Müller M

    (1998) The hydrogen hypothesis for the first eukaryote

    Nature 392:37–41.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/32096

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Martin W
    2. Koonin EV

    (2006) Introns and the origin of nucleus-cytosol compartmentalization

    Nature 440:41–45.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04531

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Martin WF
    2. Garg S
    3. Zimorski V

    (2015) Endosymbiotic theories for eukaryote origin

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 370:20140330.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0330

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Martin WF

    (2017) Symbiogenesis, gradualism, and mitochondrial energy in eukaryote origin

    Periodicum Biologorum 119:141–158.

    https://doi.org/10.18054/pb.v119i3.5694

    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Martin WF
     2. Roettger M
     3. Ku C
     4. Garg SG
     5. Nelson-Sathi S
     6. Landan G

     (2017a) Late mitochondrial origin is an artifact

     Genome Biology and Evolution 9:373–379.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evx027

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Martin WF
     2. Tielens AGM
     3. Mentel M
     4. Garg SG
     5. Gould SB

     (2017b) The physiology of phagocytosis in the context of mitochondrial origin

     Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 81:1–36.

     https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00008-17

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Mills DB

     (2020) The origin of phagocytosis in earth history

     Interface Focus 10:0–2.

     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2020.0019rsfs20200019

     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Mills DB
     2. Boyle RA
     3. Daines SJ
     4. Sperling EA
     5. Pisani D
     6. Donoghue PCJ
     7. Lenton TM

     (2022) Eukaryogenesis and oxygen in earth history

     Nature Ecology & Evolution 6:520–532.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01733-y

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Mitra K
     2. Wunder C
     3. Roysam B
     4. Lin G
     5. Lippincott-Schwartz J

     (2009) A hyperfused mitochondrial state achieved at G1-S regulates cyclin E buildup and entry into S phase

     PNAS 106:11960–11965.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904875106

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Mohanty A
     2. McBride HM

     (2013) Emerging roles of mitochondria in the evolution, biogenesis, and function of peroxisomes

     Frontiers in Physiology 4:1–12.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2013.00268

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Moreira D

     (1998) Symbiosis between methanogenic archaea and delta-proteobacteria as the origin of eukaryotes: the syntrophic hypothesis

     Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:517–530.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00006408

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Muller HJ

     (1964) The relation of recombination to mutational advance

     Mutation Research 106:2–9.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0027-5107(64)90047-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Müller JB
     2. Geyer PE
     3. Colaço AR
     4. Treit PV
     5. Strauss MT
     6. Oroshi M
     7. Doll S
     8. Virreira Winter S
     9. Bader JM
     10. Köhler N
     11. Theis F
     12. Santos A
     13. Mann M

     (2020) The proteome landscape of the kingdoms of life

     Nature 582:592–596.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2402-x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Nakatogawa H

     (2020) Mechanisms governing autophagosome biogenesis

     Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 21:439–458.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-020-0241-0

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Nelson-Sathi S
     2. Dagan T
     3. Landan G
     4. Janssen A
     5. Steel M
     6. McInerney JO
     7. Deppenmeier U
     8. Martin WF

     (2012) Acquisition of 1,000 eubacterial genes physiologically transformed a methanogen at the origin of haloarchaea

     PNAS 109:20537–20542.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209119109

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Nerurkar P
     2. Altvater M
     3. Gerhardy S
     4. Schütz S
     5. Fischer U
     6. Weirich C
     7. Panse VG

     (2015) Eukaryotic ribosome assembly and nuclear export

     International Review of Cell and Molecular Biology 319:107–140.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ircmb.2015.07.002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Neveu E
     2. Khalifeh D
     3. Salamin N
     4. Fasshauer D

     (2020) Prototypic SNARE proteins are encoded in the genomes of heimdallarchaeota, potentially bridging the gap between the prokaryotes and eukaryotes

     Current Biology 30:2468–2480.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.04.060

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Olmos Y
     2. Hodgson L
     3. Mantell J
     4. Verkade P
     5. Carlton JG

     (2015) ESCRT-III controls nuclear envelope reformation

     Nature 522:236–239.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14503

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Paludan SR
     2. Bowie AG

     (2013) Immune sensing of DNA

     Immunity 38:870–880.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2013.05.004

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Pellicer J
     2. Fay MF
     3. Leitch IJ

     (2010) The largest eukaryotic genome of them all?

     Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 164:10–15.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01072.x

     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Peña C
     2. Hurt E
     3. Panse VG

     (2017) Eukaryotic ribosome assembly, transport and quality control

     Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 24:689–699.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3454

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Pittis AA
     2. Gabaldón T

     (2016) Late acquisition of mitochondria by a host with chimaeric prokaryotic ancestry

     Nature 531:101–104.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16941

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Portugez S
     2. Martin WF
     3. Hazkani-Covo E

     (2018) Mosaic mitochondrial-plastid insertions into the nuclear genome show evidence of both non-homologous end joining and homologous recombination

     BMC Evolutionary Biology 18:1–10.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1279-x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Preisner H
     2. Habicht J
     3. Garg SG
     4. Gould SB

     (2018) Intermediate filament protein evolution and protists

     Cytoskeleton 75:231–243.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/cm.21443

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Radzvilavicius AL
     2. Blackstone NW

     (2015) Conflict and cooperation in eukaryogenesis: implications for the timing of endosymbiosis and the evolution of sex

     Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 12:20150584.

     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0584

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Raffaello A
     2. Mammucari C
     3. Gherardi G
     4. Rizzuto R

     (2016) Calcium at the center of cell signaling: interplay between endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, and lysosomes

     Trends in Biochemical Sciences 41:1035–1049.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2016.09.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Raices M
     2. D’Angelo MA

     (2012) Nuclear pore complex composition: a new regulator of tissue-specific and developmental functions

     Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 13:687–699.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3461

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Rebeaud ME
     2. Mallik S
     3. Goloubinoff P
     4. Tawfik DS

     (2021) On the evolution of chaperones and cochaperones and the expansion of proteomes across the tree of life

     PNAS 118:e2020885118.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020885118

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Robinson DF
     2. Foulds LR

     (1981) Comparison of phylogenetic trees

     Mathematical Biosciences 53:131–147.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(81)90043-2

     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Rodríguez-Trelles F
     2. Tarrío R
     3. Ayala FJ

     (2001) Erratic overdispersion of three molecular clocks: gpdh, sod, and xdh

     PNAS 98:11405–11410.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.201392198

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Schavemaker PE
     2. Muñoz-Gómez SA

     (2022) The role of mitochondrial energetics in the origin and diversification of eukaryotes

     Nature Ecology & Evolution 6:1307–1317.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01833-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Schuler MH
     2. English AM
     3. Xiao T
     4. Campbell TJ
     5. Shaw JM
     6. Hughes AL

     (2021) Mitochondrial-Derived compartments facilitate cellular adaptation to amino acid stress

     Molecular Cell 81:3786–3802.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2021.08.021

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Schwechheimer C
     2. Kuehn MJ

     (2015) Outer-Membrane vesicles from gram-negative bacteria: biogenesis and functions

     Nature Reviews. Microbiology 13:605–619.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3525

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Shiratori T
     2. Suzuki S
     3. Kakizawa Y
     4. Ishida KI

     (2019) Phagocytosis-like cell engulfment by a planctomycete bacterium

     Nature Communications 10:5529.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13499-2

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Skejo J
     2. Garg SG
     3. Gould SB
     4. Hendriksen M
     5. Tria FDK
     6. Bremer N
     7. Franjević D
     8. Blackstone NW
     9. Martin WF

     (2021) Evidence for a syncytial origin of eukaryotes from ancestral state reconstruction

     Genome Biology and Evolution 13:1–14.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evab096

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Sousa FL
     2. Neukirchen S
     3. Allen JF
     4. Lane N
     5. Martin WF

     (2016) Lokiarchaeon is hydrogen dependent

     Nature Microbiology 1:16034.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.34

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Spang A
     2. Stairs CW
     3. Dombrowski N
     4. Eme L
     5. Lombard J
     6. Caceres EF
     7. Greening C
     8. Baker BJ
     9. Ettema TJG

     (2019) Proposal of the reverse flow model for the origin of the eukaryotic cell based on comparative analyses of asgard archaeal metabolism

     Nature Microbiology 4:1138–1148.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-019-0406-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Spang A
     2. Mahendrarajah TA
     3. Offre P
     4. Stairs CW

     (2022) Evolving perspective on the origin and diversification of cellular life and the virosphere

     Genome Biology and Evolution 14:1–19.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evac034

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Speijer D
     2. Lukeš J
     3. Eliáš M

     (2015) Sex is a ubiquitous, ancient, and inherent attribute of eukaryotic life

     PNAS 112:8827–8834.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501725112

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Speijer D

     (2017) Evolution of peroxisomes illustrates symbiogenesis

     BioEssays 39:1–8.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201700050

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Speijer D

     (2020) Debating eukaryogenesis-part 2: how anachronistic Reasoning can lure us into inventing intermediates

     BioEssays 42:e1900153.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201900153

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Stairs CW
     2. Leger MM
     3. Roger AJ

     (2015) Diversity and origins of anaerobic metabolism in mitochondria and related organelles

     Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 370:20140326.

     https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0326

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Stanier RY
     2. Van Niel CB

     (1962) The concept of a bacterium

     Archiv Fur Mikrobiologie 42:17–35.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00425185

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. Book

     1. Stanier RY
     2. Doudoroff M
     3. Adelberg EA

     (1963)

     The Microbial World

     Prentice-Hall.

     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Stoten CL
     2. Carlton JG

     (2018) ESCRT-dependent control of membrane remodelling during cell division

     Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 74:50–65.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.08.035

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Sugiura A
     2. McLelland G
     3. Fon EA
     4. McBride HM

     (2014) A new pathway for mitochondrial quality control: mitochondrial‐derived vesicles

     The EMBO Journal 33:2142–2156.

     https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201488104

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Sugiura A
     2. Mattie S
     3. Prudent J
     4. McBride HM

     (2017) Newly born peroxisomes are a hybrid of mitochondrial and ER-derived pre-peroxisomes

     Nature 542:251–254.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21375

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Surkont J
     2. Pereira-Leal JB

     (2016) Are there rab gtpases in archaea?

     Molecular Biology and Evolution 33:1833–1842.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw061

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
144. 1. Survery S
     2. Hurtig F
     3. Haq SR
     4. Eriksson J
     5. Guy L
     6. Rosengren KJ
     7. Lindås AC
     8. Chi CN

     (2021) Heimdallarchaea encodes profilin with eukaryotic-like actin regulation and polyproline binding

     Communications Biology 4:1024.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02543-x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Tarrason Risa G
     2. Hurtig F
     3. Bray S
     4. Hafner AE
     5. Harker-Kirschneck L
     6. Faull P
     7. Davis C
     8. Papatziamou D
     9. Mutavchiev DR
     10. Fan C
     11. Meneguello L
     12. Arashiro Pulschen A
     13. Dey G
     14. Culley S
     15. Kilkenny M
     16. Souza DP
     17. Pellegrini L
     18. de Bruin RAM
     19. Henriques R
     20. Snijders AP
     21. Šarić A
     22. Lindås A-C
     23. Robinson NP
     24. Baum B

     (2020) The proteasome controls ESCRT-III-mediated cell division in an archaeon

     Science 369:eaaz2532.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz2532

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Thormählen I
     2. Zupok A
     3. Rescher J
     4. Leger J
     5. Weissenberger S
     6. Groysman J
     7. Orwat A
     8. Chatel-Innocenti G
     9. Issakidis-Bourguet E
     10. Armbruster U
     11. Geigenberger P

     (2017) Thioredoxins play a crucial role in dynamic acclimation of photosynthesis in fluctuating light

     Molecular Plant 10:168–182.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2016.11.012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
147. 1. Tiley GP
     2. Poelstra JW
     3. Dos Reis M
     4. Yang Z
     5. Yoder AD

     (2020) Molecular clocks without rocks: new solutions for old problems

     Trends in Genetics 36:845–856.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2020.06.002

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
148. 1. Timmis JN
     2. Ayliffe MA
     3. Huang CY
     4. Martin W

     (2004) Endosymbiotic gene transfer: organelle genomes forge eukaryotic chromosomes

     Nature Reviews. Genetics 5:123–135.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1271

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
149. 1. Tovar J
     2. Fischer A
     3. Clark CG

     (1999) The mitosome, a novel organelle related to mitochondria in the amitochondrial parasite Entamoeba histolytica

     Molecular Microbiology 32:1013–1021.

     https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2958.1999.01414.x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
150. 1. Tria FDK
     2. Brueckner J
     3. Skejo J
     4. Xavier JC
     5. Kapust N
     6. Knopp M
     7. Wimmer JLE
     8. Nagies FSP
     9. Zimorski V
     10. Gould SB
     11. Garg SG
     12. Martin WF

     (2021) Gene duplications trace mitochondria to the onset of eukaryote complexity

     Genome Biology and Evolution 13:1–17.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evab055

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
151. 1. Van de Peer Y
     2. Maere S
     3. Meyer A

     (2009) The evolutionary significance of ancient genome duplications

     Nature Reviews. Genetics 10:725–732.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2600

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
152. 1. van den Ent F
     2. Amos LA
     3. Löwe J

     (2001) Prokaryotic origin of the actin cytoskeleton

     Nature 413:39–44.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/35092500

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
153. 1. Vellai T
     2. Vida G

     (1999) The origin of eukaryotes: the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells

     Proceedings. Biological Sciences 266:1571–1577.

     https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0817

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
154. 1. Villanueva L
     2. Schouten S
     3. Damsté JSS

     (2017) Phylogenomic analysis of lipid biosynthetic genes of archaea shed light on the “lipid divide.”

     Environmental Microbiology 19:54–69.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13361

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
155. 1. Vosseberg J
     2. van Hooff JJE
     3. Marcet-Houben M
     4. van Vlimmeren A
     5. van Wijk LM
     6. Gabaldón T
     7. Snel B

     (2021) Timing the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity with ancient duplications

     Nature Ecology & Evolution 5:92–100.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01320-z

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
156. 1. Warner JR

     (1999) The economics of ribosome biosynthesis in yeast

     Trends in Biochemical Sciences 24:437–440.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-0004(99)01460-7

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
157. 1. Wheeler Q
     2. Assis L
     3. Rieppel O

     (2013) Phylogenetics: heed the father of cladistics

     Nature 496:295–296.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/496295a

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
158. 1. Wickstead B
     2. Gull K

     (2011) The evolution of the cytoskeleton

     The Journal of Cell Biology 194:513–525.

     https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201102065

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
159. 1. Williams BAP
     2. Hirt RP
     3. Lucocq JM
     4. Embley TM

     (2002) A mitochondrial remnant in the microsporidian Trachipleistophora hominis

     Nature 418:865–869.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00949

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
160. 1. Williams TA
     2. Embley TM

     (2014) Archaeal “ dark matter ” and the origin of eukaryotes

     Genome Biology and Evolution 6:474–481.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evu031

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
161. 1. Woese CR
     2. Kandler O
     3. Wheelis ML

     (1990) Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains archaea, bacteria, and eucarya

     PNAS 87:4576–4579.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.12.4576

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
162. 1. Wu F
     2. Speth DR
     3. Philosof A
     4. Crémière A
     5. Narayanan A
     6. Barco RA
     7. Connon SA
     8. Amend JP
     9. Antoshechkin IA
     10. Orphan VJ

     (2022) Unique mobile elements and scalable gene flow at the prokaryote-eukaryote boundary revealed by circularized asgard archaea genomes

     Nature Microbiology 7:200–212.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-021-01039-y

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
163. 1. Yamashita SI
     2. Jin X
     3. Furukawa K
     4. Hamasaki M
     5. Nezu A
     6. Otera H
     7. Saigusa T
     8. Yoshimori T
     9. Sakai Y
     10. Mihara K
     11. Kanki T

     (2016) Mitochondrial division occurs concurrently with autophagosome formation but independently of Drp1 during mitophagy

     The Journal of Cell Biology 215:649–665.

     https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201605093

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
164. 1. Young KD

     (2006) The selective value of bacterial shape

     Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 70:660–703.

     https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00001-06

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
165. 1. Yutin N
     2. Wolf MY
     3. Wolf YI
     4. Koonin EV

     (2009) The origins of phagocytosis and eukaryogenesis

     Biology Direct 4:9.

     https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-4-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
166. 1. Zachar I
     2. Szilágyi A
     3. Számadó S
     4. Szathmáry E

     (2018) Farming the mitochondrial ancestor as a model of endosymbiotic establishment by natural selection

     PNAS 115:E1504–E1510.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718707115

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
167. 1. Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka K
     2. Caceres EF
     3. Saw JH
     4. Bäckström D
     5. Juzokaite L
     6. Vancaester E
     7. Seitz KW
     8. Anantharaman K
     9. Starnawski P
     10. Kjeldsen KU
     11. Stott MB
     12. Nunoura T
     13. Banfield JF
     14. Schramm A
     15. Baker BJ
     16. Spang A
     17. Ettema TJG

     (2017) Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity

     Nature 541:353–358.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21031

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Parth K Raval

   Institute for Molecular Evolution, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6151-437X

2. Sriram G Garg

   Evolutionary Biochemistry Group, Max-Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology, Marburg, Germany

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4160-5228

3. Sven B Gould

   Institute for Molecular Evolution, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany

   Contribution

   Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Project administration

   For correspondence

   gould@hhu.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2038-8474

• 4,322

  views

• 747

  downloads

• 22

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.