Sriram G. Garg

Endosymbiotic theories for eukaryote origin

For over 100 years, endosymbiotic theories have figured in thoughts about the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. More than 20 different versions of endosymbiotic theory have been presented in the literature to explain the origin of eukaryotes and their mitochondria. Very few of those models account for eukaryotic anaerobes. The role of energy and the energetic constraints that prokaryotic cell organization placed on evolutionary innovation in cell history has recently come to bear on endosymbiotic theory. Only cells that possessed mitochondria had the bioenergetic means to attain eukaryotic cell complexity, which is why there are no true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. Current versions of endosymbiotic theory have it that the host was an archaeon (an archaebacterium), not a eukaryote. Hence the evolutionary history and biology of archaea increasingly comes to bear on eukaryotic origins, more than ever before. Here, we have compiled a survey of endosymbiotic theories for the origin of eukaryotes and mitochondria, and for the origin of the eukaryotic nucleus, summarizing the essentials of each and contrasting some of their predictions to the observations. A new aspect of endosymbiosis in eukaryote evolution comes into focus from these considerations: the host for the origin of plastids was a facultative anaerobe.

Bacterial Vesicle Secretion and the Evolutionary Origin of the Eukaryotic Endomembrane System

Eukaryotes possess an elaborate endomembrane system with endoplasmic reticulum, nucleus, Golgi, lysosomes, peroxisomes, autophagosomes, and dynamic vesicle traffic. Theories addressing the evolutionary origin of eukaryotic endomembranes have overlooked the outer membrane vesicles (OMVs) that bacteria, archaea, and mitochondria secrete into their surroundings. We propose that the eukaryotic endomembrane system originated from bacterial OMVs released by the mitochondrial ancestor within the cytosol of its archaeal host at eukaryote origin. Confined within the hosts cytosol, OMVs accumulated naturally, fusing either with each other or with the hosts plasma membrane. This matched the hosts archaeal secretory pathway for cotranslational protein insertion with outward bound mitochondrial-derived vesicles consisting of bacterial lipids, forging a primordial, secretory endoplasmic reticulum as the cornerstone of the eukaryotic endomembrane system. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Endosymbiotic gene transfer from prokaryotic pangenomes: Inherited chimerism in eukaryotes

Endosymbiotic theory in eukaryotic-cell evolution rests upon a foundation of three cornerstone partners—the plastid (a cyanobacterium), the mitochondrion (a proteobacterium), and its host (an archaeon)—and carries a corollary that, over time, the majority of genes once present in the organelle genomes were relinquished to the chromosomes of the host (endosymbiotic gene transfer). However, notwithstanding eukaryote-specific gene inventions, single-gene phylogenies have never traced eukaryotic genes to three single prokaryotic sources, an issue that hinges crucially upon factors influencing phylogenetic inference. In the age of genomes, single-gene trees, once used to test the predictions of endosymbiotic theory, now spawn new theories that stand to eventually replace endosymbiotic theory with descriptive, gene tree-based variants featuring supernumerary symbionts: prokaryotic partners distinct from the cornerstone trio and whose existence is inferred solely from single-gene trees. We reason that the endosymbiotic ancestors of mitochondria and chloroplasts brought into the eukaryotic—and plant and algal—lineage a genome-sized sample of genes from the proteobacterial and cyanobacterial pangenomes of their respective day and that, even if molecular phylogeny were artifact-free, sampling prokaryotic pangenomes through endosymbiotic gene transfer would lead to inherited chimerism. Recombination in prokaryotes (transduction, conjugation, transformation) differs from recombination in eukaryotes (sex). Prokaryotic recombination leads to pangenomes, and eukaryotic recombination leads to vertical inheritance. Viewed from the perspective of endosymbiotic theory, the critical transition at the eukaryote origin that allowed escape from Muller’s ratchet—the origin of eukaryotic recombination, or sex—might have required surprisingly little evolutionary innovation.

Conservation of Transit Peptide-Independent Protein Import into the Mitochondrial and Hydrogenosomal Matrix

The origin of protein import was a key step in the endosymbiotic acquisition of mitochondria. Though the main translocon of the mitochondrial outer membrane, TOM40, is ubiquitous among organelles of mitochondrial ancestry, the transit peptides, or N-terminal targeting sequences (NTSs), recognised by the TOM complex, are not. To better understand the nature of evolutionary conservation in mitochondrial protein import, we investigated the targeting behavior of Trichomonas vaginalis hydrogenosomal proteins in Saccharomyces cerevisiae and vice versa. Hydrogenosomes import yeast mitochondrial proteins even in the absence of their native NTSs, but do not import yeast cytosolic proteins. Conversely, yeast mitochondria import hydrogenosomal proteins with and without their short NTSs. Conservation of an NTS-independent mitochondrial import route from excavates to opisthokonts indicates its presence in the eukaryote common ancestor. Mitochondrial protein import is known to entail electrophoresis of positively charged NTSs across the electrochemical gradient of the inner mitochondrial membrane. Our present findings indicate that mitochondrial transit peptides, which readily arise from random sequences, were initially selected as a signal for charge-dependent protein targeting specifically to the mitochondrial matrix. Evolutionary loss of the electron transport chain in hydrogenosomes and mitosomes lifted the selective constraints that maintain positive charge in NTSs, allowing first the NTS charge, and subsequently the NTS itself, to be lost. This resulted in NTS-independent matrix targeting, which is conserved across the evolutionary divide separating trichomonads and yeast, and which we propose is the ancestral state of mitochondrial protein import.

The Physiology of Phagocytosis in the Context of Mitochondrial Origin

SUMMARY How mitochondria came to reside within the cytosol of their host has been debated for 50 years. Though current data indicate that the last eukaryote common ancestor possessed mitochondria and was a complex cell, whether mitochondria or complexity came first in eukaryotic evolution is still discussed. In autogenous models (complexity first), the origin of phagocytosis poses the limiting step at eukaryote origin, with mitochondria coming late as an undigested growth substrate. In symbiosis-based models (mitochondria first), the host was an archaeon, and the origin of mitochondria was the limiting step at eukaryote origin, with mitochondria providing bacterial genes, ATP synthesis on internalized bioenergetic membranes, and mitochondrion-derived vesicles as the seed of the eukaryote endomembrane system. Metagenomic studies are uncovering new host-related archaeal lineages that are reported as complex or phagocytosing, although images of such cells are lacking. Here we review the physiology and components of phagocytosis in eukaryotes, critically inspecting the concept of a phagotrophic host. From ATP supply and demand, a mitochondrion-lacking phagotrophic archaeal fermenter would have to ingest about 34 times its body weight in prokaryotic prey to obtain enough ATP to support one cell division. It would lack chemiosmotic ATP synthesis at the plasma membrane, because phagocytosis and chemiosmosis in the same membrane are incompatible. It would have lived from amino acid fermentations, because prokaryotes are mainly protein. Its ATP yield would have been impaired relative to typical archaeal amino acid fermentations, which involve chemiosmosis. In contrast, phagocytosis would have had great physiological benefit for a mitochondrion-bearing cell.

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

Theories for the origin of sex traditionally start with an asexual mitosing cell and add recombination, thereby deriving meiosis from mitosis. Though sex was clearly present in the eukaryote common ancestor, the order of events linking the origin of sex and the origin of mitosis is unknown. Here, we present an evolutionary inference for the origin of sex starting with a bacterial ancestor of mitochondria in the cytosol of its archaeal host. We posit that symbiotic association led to the origin of mitochondria and gene transfer to host’s genome, generating a nucleus and a dedicated translational compartment, the eukaryotic cytosol, in which—by virtue of mitochondria—metabolic energy was not limiting. Spontaneous protein aggregation (monomer polymerization) and Adenosine Tri-phosphate (ATP)-dependent macromolecular movement in the cytosol thereby became selectable, giving rise to continuous microtubule-dependent chromosome separation (reduction division). We propose that eukaryotic chromosome division arose in a filamentous, syncytial, multinucleated ancestor, in which nuclei with insufficient chromosome numbers could complement each other through mRNA in the cytosol and generate new chromosome combinations through karyogamy. A syncytial (or coenocytic, a synonym) eukaryote ancestor, or Coeca, would account for the observation that the process of eukaryotic chromosome separation is more conserved than the process of eukaryotic cell division. The first progeny of such a syncytial ancestor were likely equivalent to meiospores, released into the environment by the host’s vesicle secretion machinery. The natural ability of archaea (the host) to fuse and recombine brought forth reciprocal recombination among fusing (syngamy and karyogamy) progeny—sex—in an ancestrally meiotic cell cycle, from which the simpler haploid and diploid mitotic cell cycles arose. The origin of eukaryotes was the origin of vertical lineage inheritance, and sex was required to keep vertically evolving lineages viable by rescuing the incipient eukaryotic lineage from Muller’s ratchet. The origin of mitochondria was, in this view, the decisive incident that precipitated symbiosis-specific cell biological problems, the solutions to which were the salient features that distinguish eukaryotes from prokaryotes: A nuclear membrane, energetically affordable ATP-dependent protein–protein interactions in the cytosol, and a cell cycle involving reduction division and reciprocal recombination (sex).

The Role of Charge in Protein Targeting Evolution

Two eukaryotic compartments are of endosymbiotic origin, the mitochondrion and plastid. These organelles need to import hundreds of proteins from the cytosol. The import machineries of both are of independent origin, but function in a similar fashion and recognize N-terminal targeting sequences that also share similarities. Targeting, however, is generally specific, even though plastid targeting evolved in the presence of established mitochondrial targeting. Here we review current advances on protein import into mitochondria and plastids from diverse eukaryotic lineages and highlight the impact of charged amino acids in targeting. Their presence or absence alone can determine localization, and comparisons across diverse eukaryotes, and their different types of mitochondria and plastids, uncover unexplored avenues of protein import research.

Late Mitochondrial Origin Is an Artifact

Abstract The origin of mitochondria was a crucial event in eukaryote evolution. A recent report claimed to provide evidence, based on branch length variation in phylogenetic trees, that the mitochondrion came late in eukaryotic evolution. Here, we reinvestigate their claim with a reanalysis of the published data. We show that the analyses underpinning a late mitochondrial origin suffer from multiple fatal flaws founded in inappropriate statistical methods and analyses, in addition to erroneous interpretations.

N-Terminal Presequence-Independent Import of Phosphofructokinase into Hydrogenosomes of Trichomonas vaginalis

ABSTRACT Mitochondrial evolution entailed the origin of protein import machinery that allows nuclear-encoded proteins to be targeted to the organelle, as well as the origin of cleavable N-terminal targeting sequences (NTS) that allow efficient sorting and import of matrix proteins. In hydrogenosomes and mitosomes, reduced forms of mitochondria with reduced proteomes, NTS-independent targeting of matrix proteins is known. Here, we studied the cellular localization of two glycolytic enzymes in the anaerobic pathogen Trichomonas vaginalis: PPi-dependent phosphofructokinase (TvPPi-PFK), which is the main glycolytic PFK activity of the protist, and ATP-dependent PFK (TvATP-PFK), the function of which is less clear. TvPPi-PFK was detected predominantly in the cytosol, as expected, while all four TvATP-PFK paralogues were imported into T. vaginalis hydrogenosomes, although none of them possesses an NTS. The heterologous expression of TvATP-PFK in Saccharomyces cerevisiae revealed an intrinsic capability of the protein to be recognized and imported into yeast mitochondria, whereas yeast ATP-PFK resides in the cytosol. TvATP-PFK consists of only a catalytic domain, similarly to “short” bacterial enzymes, while ScATP-PFK includes an N-terminal extension, a catalytic domain, and a C-terminal regulatory domain. Expression of the catalytic domain of ScATP-PFK and short Escherichia coli ATP-PFK in T. vaginalis resulted in their partial delivery to hydrogenosomes. These results indicate that TvATP-PFK and the homologous ATP-PFKs possess internal structural targeting information that is recognized by the hydrogenosomal import machinery. From an evolutionary perspective, the predisposition of ancient ATP-PFK to be recognized and imported into hydrogenosomes might be a relict from the early phases of organelle evolution.

Late mitochondrial origin is pure artefact

Pittis and Gabaldón1 recently claimed that the mitochondrion came late in eukaryotic evolution, following an earlier phase of evolution in which the eukaryotic host lineage acquired genes from bacteria. Here we show that their paper has multiple fatal flaws founded in inappropriate statistical methods and analyses, in addition to erroneous interpretations.