Disclaimer: this page represents my attempt to synthesize various sources of information about eukaryotic phylogeny. It is not intended to be taken as a "system" of taxonomic or phylogenetic organization, and it certainly should not be taken as the "true" phylogeny. It is merely what I am currently inclined to believe, a convenient scheme upon which to tack other pieces of information. Please let me know if I am missing anything that you feel ought to be on here, or if you find anything that you disagree with or that you know to be wrong. Thanks!

Earthly Life/Eukaryota

Eukaryota

Origin ~2.5 BYA: Runnegar 1995; 2.4-2.8 BYA: Knoll 1992; ~1.5 BYA: C-S 1993; ~2 BYA: Doolittle MBL 10-97.
A conservative/cynical rendition of the eukaryotic tree would be an unresolved star consisting of those taxa in bold type.
4-01-98: Based mostly on tubulin sequence data, Patrick Keeling proposes that there are four basic euk groups -- Diplomonads, Parabasalia, Animals+Fungi, and Everything Else.
6-02-98: I think his work on enolases is beginning to show a similar picture, though it's too early to really tell. IBC 1999: two enolase gap characters group the parabasalia with eubacteria and archaes to the exclusion of all other euks.
1999 IBC: Patrick is now suggesting the following euk tree: (parabasalia, (A+C+F, metamonads, (stramenopiles, alveolates, red+green+glaucocysto, others)))
1998 SMBE: Patterson estimates that there are 70-plus protistan groups "equivalent" (in age? uniqueness?) to animals, plants, and fungi. These 70 groups make up 95% of euk diversity, but less than 10% of species.
June 1998: The weight of the data now push me to abolish any listing of Archaezoa -- I simply don't believe that there is any reason to think that any extant euks were primitively amitochondriate, and that is the main basis of Archaezoa as a taxon. From amongst the profusion of euk-origin theories, I am inclined to believe some fusion (!) of Ford Doolittle's "you are what you eat" and Martin/Muller's Hydrogen hypotheses as explaining the euk genes that show affinities to Archaebacteria, gram-positive bacteria, and alpha-proteobacteria.
As noted above, especially as of MBL 10-97, it seems the concensus guess is that all extant euks are descended from mitochondriate ancestors. Possible exceptions are retortamonads and oxymonads.
1999 IBC: Martin Embley points out that although there are multiple euk lineages with hydrogenosomes, they are scattered amongst aerobic taxa, suggesting likely mutiple origins. Analysis of Pyruvate ferrodoxin oxidoreductase and hydrogenase suggest monophyly, but no grouping with alpha or delta proteos. Thus either all hydrogenosomes are monophyletic or they have (apparently) gotten their machinery (in part) from the same source. Perhaps by diet ala Ford Doolittle's "you are what you eat"? Also, he says that hydrogenosomes are often accompanied by (intracellular) symbiotic assemblages of methanogenic archaes and sometimes ALSO eubacteria! Very cool.
July 2002: Stechmann and C-S report in Science a DHFR/Thymidilate Synthase fusion gene shared by bikonts (ancestrally biflagellate euks, essentially all euks except Ophistokonta [A+F+choanoflagellates] and, maybe, amoebozoa); as this fusion is assumed to be derived (eubacteria have separate genes), that makes the ophistokonts the deepest eukaryote branch! So much for a crown...


The page you are viewing, http://www.denison.edu/~kuhlman/WOL/eukaryote.html, was last modified on September 11, 2002.
This page is the creation and intellectual property of Peter L. Kuhlman.
If you have any comments or questions on this document, please send me e-mail!
.....go to my home page.....
.....go to the home page of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Denison University.....