Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Micro summery

Expand Messages
  • pawnfart
    From Second Ed. James Darnell, Harvey Lodish, and David Baltimore. Sciam Books Wh Freeman and Co, NY. On pages 1064 to 1073 I reread what I had reread as I
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 17, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      From Second Ed. James Darnell, Harvey Lodish, and David Baltimore.
      Sciam Books Wh Freeman and Co, NY.

      On pages 1064 to 1073 I reread what I had reread as I made these
      comments on the methanogens and their progeny. On of the evolution
      of cells graphs on page 1072 is very interesting. It shows that
      introns evolved precellular. And then it shows the three main
      branches where single celled eukaryotes have many introns in their
      genes and heterotrophism (our precursor). Heterotropic denotes a
      form of meiosis (cell division) in which the chromosomes split at an
      early period, the halves remaining united at the ends and opening out
      into rings, each of which represents two chromosomes. Eubacteria and
      Archaebacteria have autotrophism, and then it says specifically under
      Archaebacteria -- "Extra DNA lost".

      On page 1073 it says, and I quote: "The proposed route of evolution
      multifarious eubacteria and archaebacteria species arose originally
      in tandem with the eukaryotic progenitor. The present-day eubacteria
      and archaebacteria now largely, though not completely, lack introns
      and are designed for rapid growth . . . "

      It gets better. ON page 1063-7 it reads as a block quote from the
      text:

      "A Reconstrutive Analysis of Cell Lineages

      Discusion about precellular chemistry may forever remain
      speculative. But what about using he techniques of paleotologists,
      that is fossil studies, to investigate the first cells?
      Fossilized spherical objects discovered in Austrilia nad South Africa
      in sedimentary rock formations taht are 3-3.5 billion years old are
      widely interpreted to be remains of cells. Hoever, the basis for
      indentifying thes imprints as those of microorganisms is entirly
      morphologic. The sizes and shapes of of the "micro-fossils"are
      similar to those of present day cyanobacteria. Some of the
      structures are doublets, possibly indicating cell division. The most
      convincing reason for identifying these impressions in ancient rocks
      as fossils of microorganisms is that very similar structures called
      stromaltolits are being laid down today in sedimentary rock
      formations where ocean sediments preciptates around colonies of
      cyanobacteria and other bacteria.
      The current estimate of the earths age is 4.5 billion years years; if
      the ancient stromatoltes were in fact living cells 3-3.5 billion
      years ago, they must ahve been among the earliest cells.
      Unfortunately, there is littel we can learn from the microfossil once
      we have measured its size and apparent thickness of its cell wall.
      It is unlikely that we will ever be able to compare the protin or
      gene structures of these prsumed early cells with their possible
      counterparts amoun presnet-day cells.

      Comparison of the nucleic acid sequences of different present-day
      organisms is by far the more promising approach to discovering
      relationships that might have existed at the beginning of evolution.
      Throughout the course of this book we have mentioned many protiens
      whose amino acid sequences are recognizably similar in a variety of
      organisms even including present-day bacteria and eukaryotes. This
      is true for stretches within RNA polymerases, and translation factors
      like EF-TU and or the reverse transcriptases just discussed as well
      as many other proteins. So it is a cmopletely reasonabel assumption
      that the earliest gene pool has been retainin mutated form to some
      extent in all living cells.

      The issue to which classical evolutionnist and now molecular
      evolutionist are attracted is whether valid branching evolutionary
      trees that project back to the first cells can be constructed from
      comparative sequence data.
      The first Nucleic acid sequences available for such comparisions were
      the tRNAs. With the sequence of these short molecules for comparison
      it was possible only to proup bacteria togehter and eukaryotes
      together. Ths obvous does not settle the linage arrangements between
      different types of cells.
      Ribosomal RNA Comparisons Show Three Ancient Cell Lineages.

      However, all cells also have two ribosomal RNAs that are much longer
      in sequence and therefore afford a much better basis for comparision
      of relatedness between groups of organisms. Even before complete
      sequences were available for ribosomal RNAs, comparisons were made
      between the oligonucleotide catalogs from the ribosomal RNAs of
      different species. Thsi lead to a majore and surprising conclusion,
      now fully confirmed by the complete rRNA sequences of several hundre
      organisms: there are three major lineages of cells in presnt-day
      organisms, each of which is distinct and euqlly different from the
      other two. Therefore, no conclusion that one was earlieir than
      another is acceptable.

      The three linages are archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukarotes. The
      eubacteria (from the Greek eu, "good" or "normal") were so named
      because they come from the unusual habitats that originally suggested
      they might be more primitive then any other cells. These includ
      halophilic (salt loving) bacteria that can live in environments of
      0.5-3.M NaCl or KCl, methanogenic (methane-producing) bacteria, and
      sulfur-metabolizing bacteria that live in hot springs and in the
      vents on the sea floor under conditiosn of great heat and pressure.
      The rRNSs from eubacteria, archae-bacteria, and eukarytes have the
      same basci domains in their folded stem-loop structures, indicating a
      common origin. But the sequence comparisons clearly show three
      groups of organisms. For example, single-cell eukarotic organisms
      such as baker's yeast are much closer to humans than they are to
      hundreds of different kinds of bacteria. On the baiss of rRNA
      sequence comparisons, Carl Woese proposed that the three present-day
      linages of cells must have had an earlier common ancestor that he
      labeled the "progenate". It is possible that instead of being a
      single ancestral organism the progenate might signify the dividing
      line before cells as we known them existed. Perhaps each of the
      three present day linagesemerged from a noncellular precursor pool of
      the primitive precellular genetic apparatus. Or it is possible that
      an early, barely competent, gluggishly growing organism, no longer
      extant, gave rise to all three present-day linages of rganisms.
      Settling this isue may be difficult, but one most important message
      is clear from the ribosomal RNA comparisons: the eukaryotic nuclear
      ribosomal genes (and therefore presumable most of the nuclear genes)
      are not a direct decendant of any know prokaryote.

      A more detailed look at microbiral phylogeny arranged according to
      comparisons fo rRNA sewuences shows general accord with arrangements
      basded on metabolic properteis. For example, as teh primitive earth
      had an atmosphere with no oxygen, the firs bacteria were presumably
      anaerobes; the clostridia, a large group of anaerobes, are very
      distant from teh aerobic species such s E.coli and various bacilli,
      and they vary considerably among themselves as befits a very ancient
      group.

      Among the most controversial but provocative interpretations of rRNA
      sequences is that concerning organisms that are all grouped togeher
      as archaebactria. First, there is considerable difference in rRNA
      sequence between halobacteria and the methanaogens (the major group
      of archaebacteria) on the one hand and a small group of very
      thermophilic, sulfur-metablozing organisms. James Lake has argued hat
      based on rRNA sequences a coherent group of ancient organisms
      (including Thermoproteus tenax, Desulfurcoccus mobilis, and
      Sulfolobus solfataricus should be seperated from archaebacria. In
      addition, this small group has rRNA transcription unites seperated
      from 5S transcription units and their rRNA coding regions do not
      contain interspersed tRNAs as do those of many eubacteria nd som
      archaebacteria. In this group there is as great a sequence
      similarity to eukaryotes as to archaebactria. Furthermore, among
      this group there are organisms with introns in tRNA (S. solfataricus)
      and in the larg rRNA. Lake calls this group of orgnisms eocytes. Ths
      group does, however, share with other archaebacteria some unusual
      metabolic properties such as haveing teraether libids in their
      membranes. Furthermore, in both subgroups have polymerases with
      multiple subunits as eukaryotes do. Finally, some eubacteria also
      have seperate 5S-rRNA transcriptin units as do the preposed eocytes.
      Thus the archaebactrial classification for all these organissm is
      generally accepted.

      Obviously, further sequencing not only of rRNA genes but of genes
      encoding ribosomal proteins and other portiens found in all organisms
      should help sort out whether archaebacteri or eocyts or some more
      distant organism was the prognitor to eukaryotes or whether, as seems
      more likely, a more ancient progenitor, no longer extant (the
      "progenote"), was the ancestor to all types of presnt-day cells.
      Again, for present purposes the most important point is that
      eukaryotic nuclear linage is an ancient one, not one decended only
      1.5 bilion years ago from an already established bacterium, as has
      been taught in most biology courses for the last half century. "
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.