Minimization of extracellular space as a driving force in prokaryote association and the origin of eukaryotes

Membrane nanotubes are ancient machinery for cell-to-cell communication and transport. Their interference with the immune system

Nanotubular connections between mammalian cell types came into the focus only two decades ago, when “live cell super-resolution imaging” was introduced. Observations of these long-time overlooked structures led to understanding mechanisms of their growth/withdrawal and exploring some key genetic and signaling factors behind their formation. Unbelievable level of multiple supportive collaboration between tumor cells undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, cross-feeding” between independent bacterial strains or “cross-dressing” collaboration of immune cells promoting cellular immune response, all via nanotubes, have been explored recently. Key factors and "calling signals" determining the spatial directionality of their growth and their overall in vivo significance, however, still remained debated. Interestingly, prokaryotes, including even ancient archaebacteria, also seem to use such NT connections for intercellular communication. Herein, we will give a brief overview of current knowledge of membrane nanotubes and depict a simple model about their possible “historical role”.

A comparison of autogenous theories for the origin of eukaryotic cells

PREMISE

Eukaryotic cells have many unique features that all evolved on the stem lineage of living eukaryotes, making it difficult to reconstruct the order in which they accumulated. Nuclear endosymbiotic theories hold that three prokaryotes (nucleus, cytoplasm, and mitochondrion) came together to form a eukaryotic cell, whereas autogenous models hold that the nucleus and cytoplasm formed through evolutionary changes in a single prokaryotic lineage. Given several problems with nuclear endosymbiotic theories, this review focuses on autogenous models.

KEY INSIGHTS

Until recently all autogenous models assumed an outside-in (OI) topology, proposing that the nuclear envelope was formed from membrane-bound vesicles within the original cell body. Buzz Baum and I recently proposed an inside-out (IO) alternative, suggesting that the nucleus corresponds to the original cell body, with the cytoplasmic compartment deriving from extracellular protrusions. In this review, I show that OI and IO models are compatible with both mitochondria early (ME) or mitochondria late (ML) formulations. Whereas ME models allow that the relationship between mitochondria and host was mutualistic from the outset, ML models imply that the association began with predation or parasitism, becoming mutualistic later. In either case, the mutualistic interaction that eventually formed was probably syntrophic.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverse features of eukaryotic cell biology align well with the IOME model, but it would be premature to rule out the OIME model. ML models require that phagocytosis, a complex and energy expensive process, evolved before mitochondria, which seems unlikely. Nonetheless, further research is needed, especially resolution of the phylogenetic affinities of mitochondria.

Erratum to: Minimization of extracellular space as a driving force in prokaryote association and the origin of eukaryotes

Following the publication of this article [1] it was noticed that, due to an error on the part of the publisher, the 2nd round of comments submitted by Reviewer 1, Dr. López-García, were unintentionally omitted during the peer review process. As a consequence of this error, the authors were unable to reply to Dr. López-García’s comments and subsequently revise their manuscript accordingly (where appropriate).

In fairness to both the authors and reviewer, Dr. López-García’s (Reviewer 1) 2nd round of comments are now included below and Scott L Hooper and Helaine J Burstein (author) were given the opportunity to reply. Any consequent amendments to the research article [1] are outlined in the author’s replies.