Two Lifeforms Merge Into One Organism For First Time In a Billion Years (independent.co.uk) 75
"For the first time in at least a billion years, two lifeforms have merged into a single organism," reports the Independent:
The process, called primary endosymbiosis, has only happened twice in the history of the Earth, with the first time giving rise to all complex life as we know it through mitochondria. The second time that it happened saw the emergence of plants. Now, an international team of scientists have observed the evolutionary event happening between a species of algae commonly found in the ocean and a bacterium...
The process involves the algae engulfing the bacterium and providing it with nutrients, energy and protection in return for functions that it could not previously perform — in this instance, the ability to "fix" nitrogen from the air. The algae then incorporates the bacterium as an internal organ called an organelle, which becomes vital to the host's ability to function.
The researchers from the U.S. and Japan who made the discovery said it will offer new insights into the process of evolution, while also holding the potential to fundamentally change agriculture. "This system is a new perspective on nitrogen fixation, and it might provide clues into how such an organelle could be engineered into crop plants," said Dr Coale.
Two papers detailing the research were published in the scientific journals Science and Cell.
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.
The process involves the algae engulfing the bacterium and providing it with nutrients, energy and protection in return for functions that it could not previously perform — in this instance, the ability to "fix" nitrogen from the air. The algae then incorporates the bacterium as an internal organ called an organelle, which becomes vital to the host's ability to function.
The researchers from the U.S. and Japan who made the discovery said it will offer new insights into the process of evolution, while also holding the potential to fundamentally change agriculture. "This system is a new perspective on nitrogen fixation, and it might provide clues into how such an organelle could be engineered into crop plants," said Dr Coale.
Two papers detailing the research were published in the scientific journals Science and Cell.
Thanks to Slashdot reader fjo3 for sharing the news.
I for one (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...as far as we know. (Score:2)
n/t
Re:...as far as we know. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm pretty convinced the same thing gave rise to the cell nucleus in Eukaryotes. No one looks at the nucleus that way, and if you think about it, it makes sense the same way it makes sense for the mitochondria.
Re:...as far as we know. (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't say "no one" [royalsocie...ishing.org]:
The Mereschkowsky paper they reference is from 1905. In their further discussion of the idea, they reference a number of papers from the 1990s and 2000s, including Was the nucleus the first endosymbiont? [pnas.org], Selective forces for the origin of the eukaryotic nucleus [wiley.com], and A new fusion hypothesis for the origin of Eukarya: better than previous ones, but probably also wrong [sciencedirect.com].
So it has been thought of many times, there just isn't strong enough evidence to convince everybody yet.
Re:...as far as we know. (Score:4, Interesting)
... for values of "no one" that includes Lynn Margulis (originator of the mitochondrial- and chloroplast- endosymbiosis hypothesis, in the late 1960s and early 1970s).
By coincidence, a mid-1980s text book she authored ("Five Kingdoms") recently made it's way back form a box in my cellar onto my bedside table, because I feel the need to re-read it. While I've lost my notes from first time round (device died ; hardware-linked software), I clearly remember her making exactly that claim about the origin of nuclei. Also, in almost the same breath, she proposed endosymbiotic origins for : the actin network that underlies muscles, cellular motility and the endoplasmic reticulum ; the Golgi apparatus ; flagellae ; the nucleolus ; and I think a couple of other types of organelle. This was, in fact precisely the point I wanted to check in the book, so I dug it out. (It's buried under 10cm of higher-priority reading though.)
When I read that assertion, a decade or three ago, I thought it worthy of note ; but I also thought that Margulis was in danger of becoming a "endosymbiosis solves everything" Cassandra-a-like.
I really need to go back to re-read what she actually said.
Re: (Score:2)
"I also thought that Margulis was in danger of becoming a "endosymbiosis solves everything" Cassandra-a-like."
Who's Apollo, who cursed Cassandra in the original myth, and why are you on his side?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh - a god dies, screaming in a bath of dissolving logic. A lovely sizzling sound. How do you like your gods? Destroyed slowly and painfully, or slowly and agonisingly?
Not in a billion years (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No kidding. There are billions and billions of these things out there and ... if the process works ... they probably did it a few times in the last billion years.
This is a case of "Look at this new discovery I made!!" where in reality the real message is "Look at how fucking stupid we are that we didn't know this happened before."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Here I am replying to an instigating anonymous coward...
So when this is peer reviewed. And the experiment repeated. Will it be the 4th time in all of history that it happened for you?
Or just the 2nd time that it was observed directly?
We're already accepting that all rational thought generally believes it happened at least 2 times before. Yet somehow now rationally thinking that it ever happens ever in a more or less permanent manner.
Re:Not in a billion years (Score:4)
Here I am replying to an instigating anonymous coward...
So when this is peer reviewed. And the experiment repeated. Will it be the 4th time in all of history that it happened for you? Or just the 2nd time that it was observed directly?
We're already accepting that all rational thought generally believes it happened at least 2 times before. Yet somehow now rationally thinking that it ever happens ever in a more or less permanent manner.
The two papers by 15 authors were published in Nature and Cell, and they have a reproducibility checklist for people. I do not have the names of the peer reviewers.
This looks like it was done by the book, so I give it some legitimacy.
Now as for the breathless reportage by the Independent, I pretty much think that is just what it is. Breathless. I'd call it the first time we have recorded it, not the third time it has ever happened. Science "journalism" really needs some people who aren't just communications majors who were assigned a science subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not in a billion years (Score:4, Interesting)
To the best of my knowledge, nobody serious has claimed to observe the merger of an alpha-proteobacterium (IIRC) or a [I forget, some class of oxygenic photosynthesising bacterium] with some other class of bacterium to form respectively mitochondria or chloroplasts. That is what Lynn Margulis inferred to have happened in the early Proterozoic (twice, successively ; green plants have both chloroplasts and mitochondria).
Well, when Margulis proposed her endosymbiosis theory, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was derided as bullshit by a large proportion of the biological community. Funeral-by-funeral, the consensus has moved in her direction, but it is still a very new consensus.
Actually, Margulis has promoted the idea of around a half-dozen other symbioses in the same 2.5Gyr B.P. period. Which is not consensus yet. I was tempted, but dubious, of the idea when I met it several decades ago, and have moved the relevant book to my by-bed pile for re-reading. Don't hold your breath waiting though - it's not an important point to me.
Cat got your "n"?
Re: (Score:2)
"why aren't you both on the phone with MIT right now informing them how very very stupid they are and how very very smart you are?"
What if MIT reads this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it would be fair to say that those who understand the research will understand this and discount it, and those who do not are just destined to not get it. It's all happening as it should.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're telling us those who understand the research can't read the snippet the properly.
I think the people who understand this research should go to the links referencing the paper, not the ding-dong reportage from The Independent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I think the people who understand this research should go to the links referencing the paper, not the ding-dong reportage from The Independent."
Pot, may I introduce you to kettle?
Re: (Score:3)
"I think the people who understand this research should go to the links referencing the paper, not the ding-dong reportage from The Independent."
Pot, may I introduce you to kettle?
Non, may I introduce you to sequitur?
Meanwhile, after you read the papers, what did you think? I'm not an expert on evolutionary biology, but the papers involved seem barely related to the Independent's article.
Hence, "Ding-Dong Reportage" And that headline "Two Lifeforms Merge Into One Organism For First Time In a Billion Years". I wonder if there was a bit of recreational weed involved?
Re: (Score:2)
What if I like ding-dongs? Is it still a free country?
Re: (Score:2)
What if I like ding-dongs? Is it still a free country?
The cake treats or the other sort of ding-dongs? Some states want the second type outlawed. depending on two people with the same ones.
Re: (Score:2)
How ding-dongy is science though, seriously? How come we look at the same photograph where we once counted 24 sets of chromosomes, and today count 23, unless counting itself is socially (and therefore arbitrarily and fickly) defined?
Re: (Score:2)
How ding-dongy is science though, seriously?
Scientists are humans, subject to all of the foibles of people who believe that all science comes from some religious book. That's not a specific diss of religion, but that some people want to be told what is, and to not ever have that change.
The difference is that scientists at some point admit that they could be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not in a billion years (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. The Copernican Principle should be applied: we are likely not in a special place nor time in the Universe. (Except for the fact many places are hostile to human life, killing the observer.)
But clickbait headline writers like to imply it, because telling people they are special makes them feel, well, special. Any belief system that tells you that YOU are special is likely full of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't this cut both ways? Aren't you just emoting a hypothesis based on your mother's treatment of you probably that you're not special therefore no one else can be?
Re: (Score:2)
Why did she tell me I was much better?
Re: (Score:1)
Because your jizz tastes like her own cooking.
Re:Not in a billion years (Score:4)
The headline in the Independent (a newspaper) is now what the details in Science (a science journal) say.
The point is that they have found what appears to be and was a classified previously as an endosymbiote, showing many of the characteristics of organalle, in particular that many of the proteins for the endosymbiote are encoded in the host genome. So, it looks like it is in transition. That's pretty interesting, because there only a few types of organelles (mitochondrial, chloroplasts) but quite a few different kind of endosymbiote. Of which, nitrogen fixation is one of the more important. The question of why plant cells have photosynthetic capabilities but not nitrogen fixation is a good one. The answer from this study seems to be they haven't yet, but might be well on the way.
Meh. (Score:2)
I do this all the time with the wife.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod funny although likely inaccurate, especially the "all the time" part.
For some married couples, once in a billion years is "all the time".
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Informative)
I do this all the time with the wife.
Me too - Your wife is pretty awesome and a lot of fun.
Re: (Score:2)
I do this all the time with the wife.
Notice he said with "the wife" not "my wife". Perhaps "the wife" he is referring to is your wife. Perhaps both of you are into that kind of thing. \wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Say no more, say no more.
But still, his wife is fun too.
hot air (Score:1)
Not in a billion years? There is no way to know that if it hasn't survived. No one in a billion years will know that these guys saw it or did it, either.
Re: (Score:3)
I am pretty sure that's an infered, editorial claim. I doubt the actual scientists would make a more reserved "as far we know with current knowledge, or have observed"
The word billion or even years makes no appearance in the Cell publication, need access for the other one so couldn't check it.
As usual take your anger out on the media instead of the actual researchers.
https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/... [cell.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I believe that's false. I think Mixostricha paradoxia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] is a counter-example.
FWIW, we probably have no real idea of just how common this kind of thing is. It's clearly rare, but just *how* rare? There are lots of tiny beasties living in various niches that we haven't looked carefully at.
Re: (Score:2)
This article is about something that happened about 60 million years ago, and lingers to this day...
A person reading this sensationalist article would thing it occurred at 10am this morning, LOLZ
So Who Has Been Watching For This (Score:2)
For the last billion years as documentation? Was it Fred or Chuck?
First time? (Score:2)
Re:First time? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, we all have retroviral genes in our genomes; so in one way there certainly has been "mergings", at least at the genetic level. But the nature of the two organelles being referred to; mitochondria and chloroplasts, in indeed different. Mitochondria originated as free-living Alphaproteobacteria that could, apparently, produce ATP through oxidization. Chloroplasts are the descendants of cyanobacteria, who could produce ATP from photosynthesis.
Both mitochondria and chloroplasts weren't merely enveloped by more primitive eukaryotic cells, they're division and reproduction is timed to that of the host cell, so that when the host cell divides, so do to these organelles. Additionally, both mitochondria and chloroplasts have lost a lot of genes over the 1.5 to 2 billion years that they have been incorporated into eukaryotic cell lines. Another critical aspect of both these types of organelles is that their genomes are not merely honed down to what look like the essentials for producing energy, but that those genomes are very conserved even as compared to the host cells.
If this is the case, even it's early in the evolution of this endosymbiotic relationship, it is a significant discovery.
Reproduction? (Score:3)
The pop-sci article does not mention: is this "life form" able to reproduce?
Or is it "just" another case of symbiosis, like lichen: which is a symbiosis of algae, bacteria and fungi.
Re: (Score:3)
There definitely *is* at least one organism since plants and animals incorporated mitochondria and choloroplasts where the mix reproduces. It's a nitrogen fixing organelle. https://news.ucsc.edu/2024/04/... [ucsc.edu] I believe that Mixostricha paradoxia is also one (with two different incorporated organisms), but I'm not totally sure. There are probably others.
Re:Reproduction? (Score:5, Interesting)
The nitrogen fixing organelle is the very subject of the OP's article.
> These independent lines of evidence leave little doubt that UCYN-A has surpassed the role of a symbiont. And while mitochondria and chloroplasts evolved billions of years ago, the nitroplast appears to have evolved about 100 million years ago, providing scientists with a new, more recent perspective on organellogenesis.
The new evidence is not that this symbiosis is new, but that it's functionally an early stage organelle dependent on some proteins from the host and in the process of merging.
That we know of (Score:2)
"Two Lifeforms Merge Into One Organism For First Time In a Billion Years" ...the first time that we know of, anyway.
I was hoping for ... (Score:2)
The details of the paper say it happened 91 MY ago (Score:5, Informative)
The actual story is that scientists just recently realized the likelyhood that the nitrogen fixing ability of certain bacteria was due to a merger of one cell into another, 91 million years ago. And they hint, contrary to the headline (Only the third time!), that the nitrogen fixing capability of certain marine plankton and terrestrial plants (which host nitrogen fixing bacteria in specialized organs) may well be additional "Life form mergers."
Inspector Clouseau would be dismayed at how long this investigation required... smile
Ref:
Accordingly, not only did the B. bigelowii/UCYN-A symbiosis originate ca. 91 mya, i.e., in the late Cretaceous, but also the origin of other marine (e.g., marine planktonic diatomdiazotroph associations) and non-marine (e.g., plants with specialized root organs [nodules] where N2-fixing bacteria are hosted) N2-fixing symbioses have been dated to the Cretaceous period.
Re:The details of the paper say it happened 91 MY (Score:5, Interesting)
Mod parent up.
It's pretty hard to popularize science. You have to simplify things down far enough to be understood by readers without any formal background, but not leave out anything important that would leave the wrong impression. One presumes your typical reader of the Independent newspaper in the UK would read this article and just think, "oh, very well, carry on".
But it's great to have so many eyes on everything now so people can fill in the context for us. This is a truly net positive of having an Internet. Social media isn't all bad.
I'm glad to see a "hard" science news post on Slashdot. There have been so many science posts here in the past few years that are just junk, in my opinion. Lots of science-y and scientism stuff, all mixed in with politics and talking points. This is supposed to be a place where engineers and technical people come to talk. We want the facts, not the spin.
Re:The details of the paper say it happened 91 MY (Score:4)
Their argument has a sensible event sequence, but there are a LOT of other plausible dates for it to have happened. To me, at least the considerable increase in biomass between the Neoproterozoic and the Ordovician suggests that there was a large increase in nitrogen fixation some time before the start of the Ordovician (so 450+ Myr B.P.), not just since the Late Cretaceous.
Drake Equation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Only twice. (Score:1)
What could this lead to? (Score:2)
Me looking through microscope... (Score:2)
"Get a room!"
That doesn't count, they'll say (Score:2)
sensationalist summary and article (Score:1)
The organism in question has been around for 60 million years, "recent" in geological time, sure.
The article and summary make it sound like two organisms did the dirty deed early in the morning after getting drunk last night
What about freedom? (Score:1)
"The process involves the algae engulfing the bacterium and providing it with nutrients, energy and protection in return for functions that it could not previously perform â" in this instance, the ability to "fix" nitrogen from the air."
What if the organelle doesn't want to reproduce at the same time as its host?
and we know this because... (Score:1)
for the past billion years, there have been scientists closely watching every single instance of every single organism on Earth, right?
People read crap like this and they say "oooh" and "ahhh" and get all excited by this Amazing bit of new SCIENCE and start imagining all sorts of stuff... without ever stopping for a moment to notice that they've been completely bamboozled by that age-old mix of a gullible, lazy journalist who needs to get a story to the editor and is therefore both unqualified AND simply