Talk:Eukaryote/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Maintaining NPOV

In the Origin of eukaryotes section, I think we aren't maintaining an entirely neutral point of view; thus Eukaryote#Hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes assumes some kind of endosymbiotic process was definitely involved. Now it's true that many source write things like "it is now clear from phylogenetics that the eukaryotes are a derived domain: the outcome of an endosymbiosis between an archaeal host cell and a bacterial endosymbiont" (Lane, 2017 doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.04.031), but although this may be the current majority view, there are dissenters (see e.g. the papers authored by Ajith Harish and Charles G. Kurland in the references to the article), whose views should be included, albeit with limited weight. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say we are right to take the great majority's view that it did happen (we follow reliable secondary sources, after all), but that we should have a short dissenting paragraph (maybe at the end) to say that minority views exist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If we just followed secondary sources, there wouldn't be much left of this section, let alone the article, since it's all very new. :-) But, yes, I agree that all that is needed at present is a dissenting note, although maybe at the beginning of Eukaryote#Hypotheses for the origin of eukaryotes would be clearer? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Archeozoa hypothesis

Archeozoa hypothesis would be a good addition

https://books.google.com/books?id=KDzfXCptJbQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Eukaryote&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqxfn41e_YAhVLy2MKHcq1BnkQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Eukaryote&f=false

It's pretty discredited now; so I think it's not really notable. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Missing 6th supergroup

Article is completely missing Hemimastigophora, which includes hemimastigotes such as Hemimastix kukwesjijk. Some sections, particularly the "Five supergroups" section, may need to be updated. --Evilsofa (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Reproduction and haploid phase

The first paragraph of Eukaryote#Reproduction as of now is technically correct to say that animals don't have a haploid phase in the sense that plants have an alternation between a multicellular haploid phase/generation and a multicellular diploid phase/generation. On the other hand, there are haploid multicellular eukaryotes, such as male hymenopterans (ants, bees, wasps), and this doesn't seem obvious as it is now written. Can anyone suggest a way of clarifying this paragraph? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nominate as Good article

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@RIT RAJARSHI: If you want to nominate this article for consideration as a Good Article, what you want to add is {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Biology}}. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Readability

I would have though removing redundant references to “cell” and making the article easier for us non-specialists was helpful!) perhaps plantsurfer could improve the edit, rather than reverting it, per WP: Jabberwoch (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Age of oldest eukaryotes

The main page states, "Biomarkers suggest that at least stem eukaryotes arose even earlier. The presence of steranes in Australian shales indicates that eukaryotes were present in these rocks dated at 2.7 billion years old." However, in an article of 2015-06-01, researchers from Max Planck Gesellschaft challenge the view that eucaryotes are more than 2.5 by old. Former samples are supposed to be contaminated. There is only acknowledged evidence of eucaryotes going back to 1.5 bya.

I suggest changing the paragraph to:

Biomarkers suggest that at least stem eukaryotes arose even earlier. The presence of steranes in Australian shales indicates that eukaryotes were present in these rocks dated at 2.7 billion years old.[ref][ref] However, recent analyses challenge that view, attributing the steranes to contaminations in former samples. --Stiip (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

I read the paper from Knoll indicated in the Fossil section. I did not find any indication of "1.6–2.1 billion years ago" and that Grypania date "as far back as 2.1 billion years ago". So please correct this and read papers carefully... Ulrich Utiger (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For people new to this, could a small identifier be added to the multitude of species on this page, which indicate whether they exist today and if not, an estimated date for when they ceased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1701:AFD0:CC84:8A5D:8653:E0A8 (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Loss of mitochondria

Note 1 mentions that only one loss of mitochondria is known "to date": "Notes

To date, only one eukaryote, Monocercomonoides, is known to have completely lost its mitochondria."

the "to date" reference seems to be from 2017?

But there are others now, as a myxozoan is also (since 2020) known to have lost its mitochondria: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxozoa "In 2020, the myxozoan Henneguya salminicola was found to lack a mitochondrial genome, and thus be incapable of aerobic respiration; it was the first animal to be positively identified as such. Its actual metabolism is currently unknown" 70.70.24.124 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Eukaryotes are multicellular organisms.....may be not unicellular

In the definition of eukaryotes many of us thinks that eukaryotes are only multicellular organisms but there are also some eukaryotes which are unicellular or we can say that some organisms which consists single celled are eukaryotes

2405:204:33AB:2B98:31E3:27A2:2644:E9CB (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

See also

Link to Nitrososphaerota may be replaced by a link to Asgard (archaea) Ernsts (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Phylogeny - new supergroup Provora

Proposed in Diaphoretickes: Provora = nibblerids (Nibbleridia) + nebulids (Nebulidia)

Reference:

• doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05511-5 PMID:36477531 Microbial predators form a new supergroup of eukaryotes
  • Fig. 1 Cell morphology
  • Fig. 2 Phylogeny of eukaryotes reconstructed with a concatenated 320-gene dataset
• https://www.sci.news/biology/provora-11460.html
• https://batrachospermum.ru/2022/12/provora/ (ru, very detailed)
• press release
  • https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/973459
  • https://phys.org/news/2022-12-tree-life-lions-microbial-world.html
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=3004206&lvl=8
• https://tekdeeps.com/new-ancient-predators-found-among-microbes/ (https://paginajournal.com/novos-predadores-antigos-encontrados-entre-microbios/ es)
• https://www.nsnews.com/highlights/nibblers-and-lions-bc-researchers-discover-new-supergroup-on-tree-of-life-6220625 + https://www.coastreporter.net/highlights/nibblers-and-lions-bc-researchers-discover-new-supergroup-on-tree-of-life-6220625 + …

See also:

• https://github.com/sebepedroslab/chromatin-evolution-analysis 8 basal branches of eukaryotes (note: Amorphea + CRuMs = Podiata)
• Ancoracysta twista (Nebulidia) - mentiones C./A. marisrubri - may need an update
• Provora

The press release does not respect the newset work of Xavier Grau-Bové et al. and therefore may be a bit oldish (in fact there are 8 basl lines of eukaryotes).

Species Colponema marisrubri classified as Ancoracysta marisrubri by Thomas Cavalier-Smith, is again re-classified by the authors into a new genus as Nebulomonas marisrubri. The organelles of this species are named toxicysts or amphoracysts now.

--Ernsts (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Updated:--Ernsts (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources seem reliable enough, should go in the article unless evidence to the contrary comes up. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting to see another new lineage of eukaryotes. The result is getting plenty of coverage in secondary sources, so should definitely be added in appropriate pages.

@Ernsts: I'm not sure what you mean by the work of Grau-Bové not being respected or how it relates to this new lineage. If I understand the Grau-Bové et al (2022) paper where that figure on Github comes from, they are using a consensus phylogeny as a reference tree for their histone proteomics. It isn't a new phylogenetic analysis and it has eight lineages at the base because the relationships vary in different studies (i.e. there is no consensus). In addition there are probably some excavate lineages that don't fall within Discoba. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Thanks for your comment. You are right, I was a bit inaccurate. Just had a look to both phylogenies (Github anf Fig. 2 here). Looks like the Github phylogeny could to be modified in 2 ways: (1) Haptista may be not a member of SAR but may be connected on about same level as the other members of Diaphoretickes; (2) adding Provora (w/ its 2 phyla) as a member of Diaphoretickes. No change concerning the 8 unresolved basic lines of eukarotes as the horizontel distances of their forking points are very short (and their chronological sequence and topology may be not stable enough). What I saw was that Meteora unfortunately is not included in Fig. 2 phylogeny, which may be not a big thing. The new study was released just some months after that of Grau-Bové. Keeping in mind the time for the review process (besides all other current problems of the cooperation which we know just too well) there was probably no chance to include this orphan. --Ernsts (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Eukarya or Eucarya

In the original publication of Woese (1990), the domain was termed Eucarya instead of Eukarya. Has this original name fallen out of usage? TheBartgry (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Both names seem now to have fallen into disuse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Nevertheless, 'Eukarya' is still name-dropped in the opening sentence of the article. Perhaps you could consider removing it, if it's indeed obsolete. TheBartgry (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I actually have seen Eukarya more often used than Eucarya. Eukarya is not Woese's taxon, but Lynn Margulis' (see wikispecies:Eukaryota#Synonyms). A quick search in Google Scholar of 'Eukarya' shows just how popular it is. I suggest not removing it, please. Or at the very least put it under a synonyms list in the taxobox. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 19:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll put something in the History of classification, as it's exactly not terribly "informative" stuffing unexplained things in "infoboxes". Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap But that's quite literally the point of taxoboxes, they wouldn't have a synonyms section otherwise. they're a quick look at the taxonomy and synonyms are a pretty big deal in taxonomy. I don't think it's unexplained as long as it is later talked about in the text. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 20:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Not later, first, and cited there. Always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info in the history section, that is much more clear now. TheBartgry (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"Animal cell" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Animal cell has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 13 § Animal cell until a consensus is reached. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 07:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Page name

Ought the page name be the same as the domain name Eukaryota as per the infobox name and first entry. Iztwoz (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers English names to taxonomic Latin when such are in reasonably common use; thus we'll say plant not Plantae, nematode not Nematoda, eukaryote not Eukaryota. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Fix biomass statement

"Eukaryotes represent a small minority of the number of organisms, but due to their generally much larger size, their collective global biomass is about equal to that of prokaryotes."

This is objectively not true. As of 2018, it is clear that the biomass of eukaryotes (mainly thanks to land plants) is highly superior to that of prokaryotes. This needs to be stated! —Snoteleks 🦠 10:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Updated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

oh god...

not a British English -> American English edit that ((may)) spark a discussion Webclouddat (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the article has been {{Use American English|date=March 2017}} for over 6 years now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)