Tertiary Plastid Endosymbioses in Dinoflagellates

Gagat, Przemysław; Bodył, Andrzej; Mackiewicz, Paweł; Stiller, John W.

doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-1303-5_13

Cited by 28 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 224 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This model takes into account discrepancies between the host-and organelle-associated features of the organisms in question, including the relative strength of phylogenetic signals in their nuclear, mitochondrial and plastid genomes [105]. These additional endosymbioses are as yet hypothetical, but tertiary endosymbiosis is itself very real, having occurred on multiple occasions within dinoflagellate algae [106].…”

Section: Eukaryotic Photosynthesis: Origin and Spreadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endosymbiosis and Eukaryotic Cell Evolution

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the evolution of eukaryotic cellular complexity is one of the grand challenges of modern biology. It has now been firmly established that mitochondria and plastids, the classical membrane-bound organelles of eukaryotic cells, evolved from bacteria by endosymbiosis. In the case of mitochondria, evidence points very clearly to an endosymbiont of α-proteobacterial ancestry. The precise nature of the host cell that partnered with this endosymbiont is, however, very much an open question. And while the host for the cyanobacterial progenitor of the plastid was undoubtedly a fully-fledged eukaryote, how - and how often - plastids moved from one eukaryote to another during algal diversification is vigorously debated. In this article I frame modern views on endosymbiotic theory in a historical context, highlighting the transformative role DNA sequencing played in solving early problems in eukaryotic cell evolution, and posing key unanswered questions emerging from the age of comparative genomics.

show abstract

Section: Eukaryotic Photosynthesis: Origin and Spreadmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endosymbiosis and Eukaryotic Cell Evolution

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to examples of higher-order endosymbiosis [8,9,17,18,129], there is also at least one case of a successful primary endosymbiosis independent of Archaeplastida, namely between a freshwater thecate amoeba, Paulinella chromatophora, and a cyanobacterium from a phylogenetic lineage different from the ancestor of Archaeplastida plastids [37,51,130]. Two photosynthetically active chromatophores retained by Paulinella fulfill all criteria to be considered true organelles [131].…”

Section: Inconsistency Of Archaeplastida Phylogenies In the Context Omentioning

confidence: 99%

Monophyly of Archaeplastida supergroup and relationships among its lineages in the light of phylogenetic and phylogenomic studies. Are we close to a consensus?

Mackiewicz

Gagat

2014

Acta Soc Bot Pol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the key evolutionary events on the scale of the biosphere was an endosymbiosis between a heterotrophic eukaryote and a cyanobacterium, resulting in a primary plastid. Such an organelle is characteristic of three eukaryotic lineages, glaucophytes, red algae and green plants. The three groups are usually united under the common name Archaeplastida or Plantae in modern taxonomic classifications, which indicates they are considered monophyletic. The methods generally used to verify this monophyly are phylogenetic analyses. In this article we review up-to-date results of such analyses and discussed their inconsistencies. Although phylogenies of plastid genes suggest a single primary endosymbiosis, which is assumed to mean a common origin of the Archaeplastida, different phylogenetic trees based on nuclear markers show monophyly, paraphyly, polyphyly or unresolved topologies of Archaeplastida hosts. The difficulties in reconstructing host cell relationships could result from stochastic and systematic biases in data sets, including different substitution rates and patterns, gene paralogy and horizontal/endosymbiotic gene transfer into eukaryotic lineages, which attract Archaeplastida in phylogenetic trees. Based on results to date, it is neither possible to confirm nor refute alternative evolutionary scenarios to a single primary endosymbiosis. Nevertheless, if trees supporting monophyly are considered, relationships inferred among Archaeplastida lineages can be discussed. Phylogenetic analyses based on nuclear genes clearly show the earlier divergence of glaucophytes from red algae and green plants. Plastid genes suggest a more complicated history, but at least some studies are congruent with this concept. Additional research involving more representatives of glaucophytes and many understudied lineages of Eukaryota can improve inferring phylogenetic relationships related to the Archaeplastida. In addition, alternative approaches not directly dependent on phylogenetic methods should be developed.

show abstract

“…of reef-building corals (G omez 2012). They are distinguished by a number of peculiarities, among them the unique mitogenome and, in some cases, even two functional mitochondrial sets in one cell: one of their own and the second present in an engulfed endosymbiotic diatom (Imanian et al 2012;Gagat et al 2014). Together with their sister parasitic lineage Apicomplexa and some other relatives, dinoflagellates constitute the Myzozoa assemblage that unites with free-living ciliates in the superphylum Alveolata (Figure 1; Burki 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peculiarities within peculiarities – dinoflagellates and their mitochondrial genomes

Gagat

Mackiewicz

2017

Mitochondrial DNA Part B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the establishment of an endosymbiotic relationship between a proto-mitochondrion and its probable archaeal host, mitochondrial genomes underwent a spectacular reductive evolution. An interesting pathway was chosen by mitogenomes of unicellular protists called dinoflagellates, which experienced an additional wave of reduction followed by amplification and rearrangement leading to their secondary complexity. The former resulted in a mitogenome consisting of only three protein-coding genes, the latter in their multiple copies being scattered across numerous chromosomes and the evolution of complex processes for their expression. These stunning features raise a question about the future of the dinoflagellate mitochondrial genome. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Tertiary Plastid Endosymbioses in Dinoflagellates

Cited by 28 publications

References 224 publications

Endosymbiosis and Eukaryotic Cell Evolution

Endosymbiosis and Eukaryotic Cell Evolution

Monophyly of Archaeplastida supergroup and relationships among its lineages in the light of phylogenetic and phylogenomic studies. Are we close to a consensus?

Peculiarities within peculiarities – dinoflagellates and their mitochondrial genomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About