For many years we have believed that there are only two
kinds of organisms on earth: prokaryote and eukaryote. The origin of the
eukaryotes is undetermined to date, with conflict between the 2 main theories:
the endosymbiosis and the autogenesis theory. However, this paper throws a
whole new scenario into the mix, as it finds a morphological intermediate
between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The organism in question was isolated from the
chaetae of a scale worm living in Myojin Knoll hydrothermal vents, off the
coast of Japan. It was found at a depth of 1240m in 2010 and named Parakaryon myojinensis. The organism was
classified using electron microscopy and structome analysis, a method which
involves a three dimensional reconstruction of the microbe by taking ultra-thin
slices of the organism and placing them back together to create a full picture,
internally and externally, of the structure of the microbe. This method targets
all microorganisms without segregation of the culturable from the non-culturable,
and whilst it is time-consuming and laborious, it gives a less biased view of
the microorganisms living in extreme environmental conditions, such as the deep
sea.
Parakaryon myojinensis
has various characteristic features that fall out of prokaryotic or eukaryotic
classification. It has a large, single nucleoid membrane with an irregular
shape. This whole nucleoid accounts for 41% of the entire cell and is made up
of fibrous strands of DNA surrounded by a single membrane with visible pores.
This lack of chromosomal organisation or double membrane rule out the
eukaryotic classification. However its size of 10 by 3μm suggests a form of
transport system to be present. Typically this is not seen in prokaryotic
organisms; they are generally restricted to a few nm due to their diffusion-dependant
metabolism.
This new microorganism also possesses three intracellular endosymbionts.
One of which is large and spiral-shaped and 2 of which are smaller and rod-shaped.
The function of these symbionts is currently unclarified. It is thought
unlikely, though, that they are of predatory origin due to their range of
diverse characteristics and their lack of cell wall to assist a structural
attack. One theory instead is that there is a stable symbiotic relationship
between host and endosymbionts. This interior endosymbiont structure of the
microbe suggests vast similarities to modern eubacteria; however the lack of
cell wall showed otherwise.
This paper provides an insight to the controversial topic
that is the origin of prokaryote and eukaryote organisms, it is exactly the
kind of evidence that will be needed to settle the debate once and for all.
Having said that, there is still a lot of work to be done in terms of
classification and phylogenetic analysis of this organism before anything can
be set in stone. It would be prudent to investigate methods of DNA analyses to
determine the phylogenetic relationship between P. myojinesis and its closest relatives. It would also be
interesting to attempt to culture the organisms to see how it reacts
biochemically, as often it can be these sorts of analyses that determine the
true nature of an organism. If P. myojinesis
is an intermediate stage between prokaryote and eukaryote life forms, it would be
a big change to the way we think about the prokaryote and eukaryote lineage.
Yamaguchi M., Mori
Y., Kozuka Y., Okada H., Uematsu K., Tame A., Furukawa H., Maruyama T.,
O’Driscoll Worman C., and Yokoyama K. (2012) Prokaryote or eukaryote? A unique
microorganism from the deep sea. Journal of Electron Microscopy, 61, 423-431.
Wow, this is really some break through science! So clever as well to obtain such a small organism from such a deep depth. I was just wondering how they collected the samples of worm? Was it by ROV? The endosymbionts, and three of them, is really interesting- were they all different endosymbionts or just three individuals! Most organisms that deep us chemosynthesis, and if there are three endosymbionts, you really wonder what they are trying to achieve, maybe even a new method to harvest energy. This really puts into light how much we think we know about this planet... and then how much we don't! Thanks Freya :)
ReplyDeleteThanks Elyssa! The methods section is quite brief in the paper and it doesn't mention the technique of collection of the worms, however ROV would definitely be suitable for this. I recently read another interesting paper that collected arrow worms at depth using ROV (http://www.biolbull.org/content/219/2/100.full). As for the endosymbionts, there are 3 types of different morphologies in the cell, which really does make you wonder what all their functions are! It would be really interesting to look more into this organism as it seems it could provide answers to many of our questions.
ReplyDeleteThanks for an interesting paper Freya. As you rightly point out, this really needs some DNA analysis to support the EM observations. Classifyin organisms as 'prokayotes' or 'eukaryotes' overlooks the more modern view of Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya. Do the authors acknowledge this?
ReplyDeleteReally interesting post! Have you come across any papers which have investigated the biochemistry and metabolism of Parakaryon myojinensis? :)
ReplyDeleteJack
Thanks for the comments! The authors unfortunately do not mention anything about the modern view of Bacteria, Archaea and Eukarya, it is definitely something that should be considered as I believe that Parakaryon myojinensis is just another species to emphasise the redundancy of the 'Prokaryote' term.
ReplyDeleteAs for biochemical and metabolic properties of P. myojinensis, there really hasn't been much work done. However, Yamaguchi and Worman (2014) suggest that this is precisely the next step and that will estimates the phylogenetic position and the timing of the endosymbiotic event in P. myojinensis.
Freya