Response to Martin and colleagues: mitochondria do not boost the bioenergetic capacity of eukaryotic cells

The economics of organellar gene loss and endosymbiotic gene transfer

BACKGROUND

The endosymbiosis of the bacterial progenitors of the mitochondrion and the chloroplast are landmark events in the evolution of life on Earth. While both organelles have retained substantial proteomic and biochemical complexity, this complexity is not reflected in the content of their genomes. Instead, the organellar genomes encode fewer than 5% of the genes found in living relatives of their ancestors. While many of the 95% of missing organellar genes have been discarded, others have been transferred to the host nuclear genome through a process known as endosymbiotic gene transfer.

RESULTS

Here, we demonstrate that the difference in the per-cell copy number of the organellar and nuclear genomes presents an energetic incentive to the cell to either delete organellar genes or transfer them to the nuclear genome. We show that, for the majority of transferred organellar genes, the energy saved by nuclear transfer exceeds the costs incurred from importing the encoded protein into the organelle where it can provide its function. Finally, we show that the net energy saved by endosymbiotic gene transfer can constitute an appreciable proportion of total cellular energy budgets and is therefore sufficient to impart a selectable advantage to the cell.

CONCLUSION

Thus, reduced cellular cost and improved energy efficiency likely played a role in the reductive evolution of mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes and the transfer of organellar genes to the nuclear genome.

Revisiting the hypothesis of an energetic barrier to genome complexity between eukaryotes and prokaryotes

The absence of genome complexity in prokaryotes, being the evolutionary precursors to eukaryotic cells comprising all complex life (the prokaryote-eukaryote divide), is a long-standing question in evolutionary biology. A previous study hypothesized that the divide exists because prokaryotic genome size is constrained by bioenergetics (prokaryotic power per gene or genome being significantly lower than eukaryotic ones). However, this hypothesis was evaluated using a relatively small dataset due to lack of data availability at the time, and is therefore controversial. Accordingly, we constructed a larger dataset of genomes, metabolic rates, cell sizes and ploidy levels to investigate whether an energetic barrier to genome complexity exists between eukaryotes and prokaryotes while statistically controlling for the confounding effects of cell size and phylogenetic signals. Notably, we showed that the differences in bioenergetics between prokaryotes and eukaryotes were less significant than those previously reported. More importantly, we found a limited contribution of power per genome and power per gene to the prokaryote-eukaryote dichotomy. Our findings indicate that the prokaryote-eukaryote divide is hard to explain from the energetic perspective. However, our findings may not entirely discount the traditional hypothesis; in contrast, they indicate the need for more careful examination.

A century of bias in genetics and evolution

Mendel proposed that the heritable material is particulate and that transmission of alleles is unbiased. An assumption of unbiased transmission was necessary to show how variation can be preserved in the absence of selection, so overturning an early objection to Darwinism. In the second half of the twentieth century, it was widely recognised that even strongly deleterious alleles can invade if they have strongly biased transmission (i.e. strong segregation distortion). The spread of alleles with distorted segregation can explain many curiosities. More recently, the selectionist-neutralist duopoly was broken by the realisation that biased gene conversion can explain phenomena such as mammalian isochore structures. An initial focus on unbiased transmission in 1919, has thus given way to an interest in biased transmission in 2019. A focus on very weak bias is now possible owing to technological advances, although technical biases may put a limit on resolving power. To understand the relevance of weak bias we could profit from having the concept of the effectively Mendelian allele, a companion to the effectively neutral allele. Understanding the implications of unbiased and biased transmission may, I suggest, be a good way to teach evolution so as to avoid psychological biases.