pre-mitochondrial electron transport

Jim Cummins cummins at central.murdoch.edu.au
Tue Apr 23 02:14:27 EST 1996


In article <4l8ioj$nf3 at News.Dal.Ca>, "Andrew J. Roger" <aroger at ac.dal.ca> wrote:

> "James O. McInerney Ph.D." <jamm at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >       It has been pointed out to me by somebody here at the museum that the 
> >date for the mitochondrial endosymbiosis (or whatever you wish to call 
> >it) has continuously been pushed further down the eukaryotic tree (by 
> >unearthing evidence for secondary mitochondrial loss).
> >
> >       Now, there is general agreement that the mitochondrion is
monophyletic 
> >(descendent from the ancestors of Alpha proteobacteria).  Alpha 
> >proteobacteria are _relatively_ recent bacteria (as judged by molceular 
> >trees, and assuming a reasonable molecular clock), so mitochondrial 
> >eukaryotes can only have evolved _relatively_ recently.  Therefore, a 
> >HUGE length of time elapsed between the splitting of 'Eukarya' and 
> >Bacteria.  Sooo, in that time there must have been some eukaryotes that 
> >were successful.
> >
Check out Blackstone NW (1995) A units-of-evolution perspective on the
endosymbiont theory of the origin of the mitochondrion.  Evolution 49(5):
785-796

-- 
URL http://numbat.murdoch.edu.au/spermatology/spermhp.html



More information about the Mol-evol mailing list