Finally out in @natmicrobiol.nature.com: Prediction of eukaryotic cellular complexity in Asgard archaea using structural modelling. Great work by @stephkoe.bsky.social @kassipan.bsky.social @jvhooff.bsky.social
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
Final version @nature.com of our paper describing unconventional multicellular development in a choanoflagellate inhabiting an extreme environment. A ton of new data since the first @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social preprint (which we've kept updating).
A brief 𧡠(carried over from the old place)
We're on a roll here. Check out this cool paper by @scienceleah.bsky.social et al. on not one, but two types of sperm (!) in the silk worm Bombyx mori. Happy to have contributed. #meiosis4ever
Now in Nature Comms w/ @ritatewari.bsky.social, Pushkar Sharma & @ryanase.bsky.social (thanks!). Aurora kinases fascinate me: single ancestor - parallel duplications in eukaryotes - paralogs with distinct functions. ARK1 is the CPC Aurora in the malaria parasite. rdcu.be/e5NRT #plasmodium #mitosis
As a cell biology lab, we acknowledge the decades-long impressive efforts to uncover evolutionary relationships using advanced phylogenomics methods. These approaches undergo continuous improvements that lead to adjustments of data interpretation, as is the case in every scientific field. (1/3)
The 'devil is in the details'. You have to look beyond author claims and try to understand why the various studies have come to different conclusions and read the explanations given by the authors themselves.
Ciliates also have highly complex genomes which undergo extensive rearrangement during their development. Recently it was shown that in the genus Euplotes, the levels of synteny are low, see pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
We base our orthology calls on careful protein sequence analysis, rather than on synteny. We did not check for synteny in this case, but we expect that considering the ancient divergence time from other sequenced species (>900 Mya from Paramecium) we are unlikely to find conservation of synteny.
As a notable example, Thomas Cavalier-Smith has put out numerous different placements of the root based on gene presences/absences or molecular features, differing in conclusion depending on which feature was examined.
Since you return to this criticism on sequence-based analyses, I would like to point out that analyses/hypotheses based on cell biological characteristics or molecular features have also yielded various different root positions.
That is what I meant to convey in my skeet. This is why robust and statistical sequence-based analyses are in our view much more informative. And these consistently group Euglenozoa together as a single, monophyletic group.
This is precisely why we argue that basing the root on such characterics is not sustainable, as we explain in our paper. By placing the root within Euglenozoa, you appear to solve the diversity in kinetochore architecture, but this creates many other losses/transitions.
However, I would like to address your point from your skeet 7/8. Of course we do not mean to say that morphologic changes do not happen in eukaryotic evolution. Eukaryotes come in all different shapes and sizes.
Thank you for sharing your views. As you point out many of these points are discussed in our respective papers, so I'd like to refer to those and not go into all the details here.
Highly divergent genes hiding in plain sight are definitely part of the puzzle! As an example, we recently identified numerous kinetochore components in the ciliate Tetrahymena thermophila that previously evaded sensitive homology searches: www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
Finally, I'd like to thank my co-authors @jvhooff.bsky.social, Julius LukeΕ‘, Thomas Richards, @andrewjroger.bsky.social, Bill Wickstead, @kopslab.bsky.social, Berend Snel & @eelcotromer.bsky.social for their valuable contributions and support. (12/12)
#protistsonsky
We are grateful to @jcellsci.bsky.social for providing the opportunity to express our views on this matter and for the smooth handling of our correspondence piece. (11/12)
We conclude that the kinetoplastid kinetochore is the result of a replacement of an ancestral conventional kinetochore. This negates the idea that kinetoplastids branched off from all other eukaryotes directly after LECA and before the origin of the kinetochore. (10/12)
Furthermore, kinetoplastids are not the only known lineage to lack (almost) all components of the conventional kinetochore, as the metamonad Carpediemonas membranifera also was found to not encode many kinetochore subunits in its genome. See: www.nature.com/articles/s41... (9/12)
Instead of a conventional kinetochore, kinetoplastids have an analogous system. In our reply, we point out that the replacement of core cell biological machinery by non-homologous proteins is known to have happened on multiple occasions across diverse eukaryotic lineages. (8/12)
By contrast, maintaining the monophyly of euglenids and kinetoplastids directly results in the inference of a conventional kinetochore in LECA, as euglenids possess numerous components of this system. Thus, the absence of a conventional kinetochore in kinetoplastids must be derived. (7/12)
Unfortunately, @bungoakiyoshi.bsky.social responded to our reply without acknowledging these points. Instead, he argues that even in his proposed root placement, euglenids can be closely-related to kinetoplastids, despite their paraphyly. We stress that these notions are mutually exclusive.(6/12)
Placing the LECA root within Euglenozoa, as @bungoakiyoshi.bsky.social proposes, is problematic because it implies that LECA itself was a Euglenozoan-like cell. This scenario necessitates the loss of many Euglenozoa-specific features in the branch leading to all other eukaryotes. (5/12)
Critically, the proposed scenario would mean that euglenids are more closely-related to all other eukaryotes, including humans, than they are to kinetoplastids. This is dubious as there is a lot of evidence showing the close relation between euglenids and kinetoplastids, together Euglenozoa. (4/12)
This scenario places the root of the eukaryotic tree of life between kinetoplastids and all other eukaryotes. However, no phylogenetic support exists for this idea. (3/12)
In their Hypothesis, @bungoakiyoshi.bsky.social interprets the fact that kinetoplastids lack a conventional kinetochore, a core machinery for cell division, as evidence for these organisms having split-off before the emergence of the conventional kinetochore system. (2/12)
Recently, a Hypothesis was posed in @jcellsci.bsky.social in which the root of eukaryotes was placed between kinetoplastids and all other eukaryotes. From this, it was implied that LECA did not have a kinetochore. We argue this is highly unlikely. A π§΅(1/12)
Read our reply here: tinyurl.com/n87myhpr
This work would not have been possible without Emine Ali, my co-first author and resident Tetrahymena expert, and co-authors @lauraelse.bsky.social , Harmjan, Paula, and of course my supervisors @eelcotromer.bsky.social, Berend Snel and @kopslab.bsky.social. Thanks to all! (11/11)
All in all, we find that T. thermophila has a unique kinetochore combining both highly-divergent, but ancient, as well as more recently-evolved components into a functional whole. (10/11)
Finally, we identified one unconventional component to be a highly-divergent member of the kinesin-6 family. So far, no kinesin-6 family member has been reported at the kinetochore in model organisms, but its presence in T. thermophila may suggest an ancestral function here. (9/11)
