2015
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1421378112
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reproduction, symbiosis, and the eukaryotic cell

Abstract: This paper develops a conceptual framework for addressing questions about reproduction, individuality, and the units of selection in symbiotic associations, with special attention to the origin of the eukaryotic cell. Three kinds of reproduction are distinguished, and a possible evolutionary sequence giving rise to a mitochondrion-containing eukaryotic cell from an endosymbiotic partnership is analyzed as a series of transitions between each of the three forms of reproduction. The sequence of changes seen in t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
24
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
24
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Symbiotic interactions are considered a fundamental feature of life (Gilbert et al, 2012;Margulis, 1970;McFall-Ngai, 2008). These intimate, and often obligate, interactions among organisms from evolutionarily distinct lineages play central roles in physiology, reproduction, evolution, and other fundamental biological processes (Godfrey-Smith, 2015;Oliver et al, 2009;Turnbaugh and Gordon, 2009). In spite of the overarching importance of symbioses, teasing apart specific mechanisms structuring interactions among symbionts has historically been stymied due to a variety of factors, including an incomplete perspective of diversity and a general inability to accurately identify microbial partners.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Symbiotic interactions are considered a fundamental feature of life (Gilbert et al, 2012;Margulis, 1970;McFall-Ngai, 2008). These intimate, and often obligate, interactions among organisms from evolutionarily distinct lineages play central roles in physiology, reproduction, evolution, and other fundamental biological processes (Godfrey-Smith, 2015;Oliver et al, 2009;Turnbaugh and Gordon, 2009). In spite of the overarching importance of symbioses, teasing apart specific mechanisms structuring interactions among symbionts has historically been stymied due to a variety of factors, including an incomplete perspective of diversity and a general inability to accurately identify microbial partners.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even relying exclusively on the physiological conception of individuality, holobionts can be considered biological individuals and ecological communities, depending on the perspective adopted (host perspective or symbiont perspective). This suggests that the strategy of dividing the individuality thesis into several theses depending on the conception of individuality that is adopted is not valid to resolve the problems of individuation raised by holobionts, contrary to what some authors have argued (Godfrey‐Smith, 2013, 2015; Chiu & Eberl, 2016; Griesemer, 2016, 2017; Smith, 2017). Indeed, contemporary literature about the individuality of the holobiont is a clear proof of why the last solution is not valid, with two groups of researchers who deeply disagree (Morris, 2018; Suárez, 2018).…”
Section: A Part‐dependent Account Of Biological Individuality – Holobmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Some authors have recently appealed to the existence of different conceptions of biological individuality to solve the debate about the individuality of the holobiont. For example, Godfrey‐Smith (2013, 2015) and Smith (2017) believe that holobionts are physiological individuals ( organisms , in their words), but not evolutionary individuals. Different versions of that solution have also been defended by Griesemer (2016) and Chiu & Eberl (2016), who recently suggested that holobionts can be conceived as hybrids.…”
Section: The Problem Of Biological Individualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…5) (see also Godfrey-Smith (2013)), for instance, argues like others before him (e.g., Dawkins, 1982;Maynard Smith and Szathmary, 1995;Huxley, 1912), that one criterion for individuality is the existence of a bottleneck between collective generations. As recognized by Godfrey-Smith (2015) himself, the bottleneck criterion can only account for fraternal ETIs, that is, in transitions where the different partners forming collectives are closely related phylogenetically (Queller, 1997). In the case of egalitarian transitions, that is, transitions in which the different partners or particles of a collective have different phylogenetic origins, extreme bottlenecks (one single cell) cannot be achieved because there is no possibility for one partner to 'represent', that is to say reproduce on behalf of, the other(s).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%