The term prokaryotic has arisen from Greek words “Pro” and “Karyon” ( Pro: ancient/primitive; karyon: nut/nucleus). As the name suggests, the evolution of prokaryotic cells is at least 3.5 billion years old . But even today they are a substantial part of human life.
These are basically cells with simple configuration, orientation and mechanism. This is because they lack membrane-bound, well-structured organelles and are not advanced as eukaryotes. Most of the microbial fauna like bacteria and archaea are prokaryotic in nature.
Even with their very tiny framework and unorganised system , they are an integral part of our lives. Not only in our surroundings, some of them even exist inside us . They have a crucial role in the agricultural and industrial sectors too. Apart from this, they might also be harmful in several circumstances, leading to diseases.
Note: The prokaryotes have the special ability to go into the dormant stage for surviving in the harsh unsuitable environment. For this the generates the endospores which can bear all kinds of stresses.
The term eukaryote has also been elicited from the Greek language. It comprises the combination of two words” Eu “(means true/real) and “ karyon “(nut/nucleus). They are named so due to the presence well-defined, membrane-bound nucleus. They are the advanced and modernized type of cells found in higher organisms like plants, animals, and fungi.
Unlike prokaryotes, these cells have specified organelles that are assigned to perform specialized functions. For this reason, they have a bit complex level of organization . These calls can be present in the singular, colonial or multi-cellular configuration as per the complexity of the organism.
The eukaryotic cell can be studied under the following headings:
Mitochondria : It is called the powerhouse of the cell. Its major function is the generation of energy in the form of ATP. It possesses its personalized DNA that remains floating in the matrix inside.
Golgi Apparatus : It consists of a stack of many flattened, disc-shaped sacs known as cisternae. The major role of the Golgi body is packaging and transporting the cellular component within and/or outside the cell. Also sometimes, they are responsible for storing these materials.
Endoplasmic Reticulum : They generate a pipeline network in the cell. This conducts the cellular metabolites to the different parts and locations of the cell. It transport lipids, proteins, and other materials through the cell. They are of two types of smooth endoplasmic reticulum and rough endoplasmic reticulum.
Chloroplast : These are only found in algae and plants. Their prime role is to store the chlorophyll that is essential to perform a photosynthesis reaction. Also stores various other pigments like carotenoids, xanthophylls etc that are responsible for providing multiple colours to the plants.
Ribosomes : Tiny but significant organelle. Generally present over the surface of the endoplasmic reticulum. They aid the protein synthesis mechanism in the cell. Eukaryotes have 80S ribosomes which are further divided into two subunits which are 40S and 60S (S stands for Sedverg unit).
Lysosomes – Lysosomes are manufactured by the endoplasmic reticulum and golgi bodies. They are recognized as the suicide bags that digest every unnecessary element including old organelles, cellular debris, foreign bodies such as pathogens etc.
Vacuoles -Vacuoles are the big-sized storage bags of the cell. They not only store the necessary components.
Following are the substantial difference between Prokaryotic Cells and Eukaryotic Cell:
The cell is the basic unit of life, responsible for all biological activities of the living being whether its prokaryote or eukaryote. Both of these cells vary in their role, like prokaryotes are the old type of cells hence they lack a proper nucleus and other organelles too, which are very well present in eukaryotes, as these are the evolved and advanced cells.
frank zvakavapano says
March 12, 2019 at 9:46 am
santosh guptha says
March 25, 2019 at 10:29 am
Super Article
Sudesh says
October 12, 2019 at 3:09 pm
Wanteikupar lyngkhoi says
May 10, 2019 at 8:36 am
very good article and detailing
Hafsah Syed says
May 30, 2019 at 6:41 am
A really good comparision between both types of cells… Well explained.
Tagore says
June 3, 2019 at 3:29 pm
Very helpful
Santosh Dewangan says
July 22, 2019 at 3:38 pm
Thanks for sharing it greatly helped me to understand these two types of cells for my exams…
myrbsenotes says
August 1, 2019 at 2:43 am
gulshan says
August 9, 2019 at 11:27 am
good and handy well-mentioned differences………….really appreciable
Rishikes Dhage says
August 15, 2019 at 10:39 pm
Thanx Is a very important
September 14, 2019 at 6:50 pm
Vry good differences….. It hlpd me a lot
Bikram sahu says
September 16, 2019 at 1:54 pm
Thanks , It maybe helpful all students. Because it is easily understand.
September 16, 2019 at 2:40 pm
It is easily understand .So many many thanks for you.
josphat ekisa says
September 25, 2019 at 6:19 am
wow, this is awesome
Debarghaya Mitra says
September 25, 2019 at 1:08 pm
Very good one.
November 1, 2019 at 4:12 am
This really helped me lot
January 31, 2020 at 12:41 am
Nice things are given in that article
Muhammad Tayyab says
May 16, 2020 at 6:12 am
This is awesome and very help – full
Sourav says
September 5, 2020 at 5:07 am
Really helpful article,,
AIMEN ASHER says
October 1, 2020 at 4:15 am
It is really different from the differences on any other website. Really a great job. Thumbs up for the effort.
Nadeem saqib says
November 5, 2020 at 12:31 pm
Very good artical may you live long
akshara singh says
January 4, 2021 at 12:55 pm
much better than other websites..😌👍🏻
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Microbe Notes
1. | Term Origin | Greek for “primitive nucleus” | Greek for “true nucleus” |
2. | Definition | Organisms are made up of cell(s) that lack a cell nucleus or any membrane-encased organelles. | Organisms are made up of cells that possess a membrane-bound nucleus as well as membrane-bound organelles. |
3. | Major groups | Bacteria, Archae, and Bluegreen algae | Algae, fungi, protozoa, plants, animals |
4. | Origin | Around 3.5 billion years ago. | Around 2 billion years ago. |
5. | Size (approximate) | 0.5-3.0 μm | >5 μm |
6. | Cell Type | Usually unicellular (some cyanobacteria may be multicellular) | Usually multicellular |
7. | Complexity | Simple | Complex organization. |
8. | Nucleus Location | Free in the cytoplasm, attached to mesosomes | Contained in membrane-bound structure |
9. | Nuclear membrane | No nuclear membrane. | Classic membrane present. |
10. | Nucleolus | Absent | Present |
11. | Chromosome number | One | More than one |
12. | Chromosome shape | Circular | Linear |
13. | Genes | Expressed in groups called operons. | Expressed individually |
14. | Genome | haploid genome | diploid genome |
15. | DNA base ratio (G+C %) | 28-73 | About 40 |
16. | DNA wrapping on proteins | Multiple proteins act together to fold and condense prokaryotic DNA. Folded DNA is then organized into a variety of conformations that are supercoiled and wound around tetramers of the HU protein. | Eukaryotes wrap their DNA around proteins called histones. |
17. | Genome nature | Efficient and compact with little repetitive DNA. | With large amounts of non-coding repetitive DNA. |
18. | Membrane-bound organelles | Absent | Present |
19. | Ribosomes (sedimentation coefficient) | 70S (50S + 30S).Smaller. | 80S (60S + 40S). Larger. |
20. | Ribosome’s location | Free in the cytoplasm or bound to the cell membrane | Attached to the rough endoplasmic reticulum |
21. | Mitochondria | Absent | Present |
22. | Golgi bodies | Absent | Present |
23. | Endoplasmic reticulum | Absent | Present |
24. | Mesosomes | Present. Performs the function of Golgi bodies and mitochondria and also helps in the separation of the chromosome during cell division. | Absent |
25. | Lysosomes | Absent | Present |
26. | Peroxisomes | Absent | Present |
27. | Chloroplasts | Absent; chlorophyll scattered in the cytoplasm | Present (in plants) |
28. | Fimbriae | Prokaryotes may have pili and fimbriae (appendage that can be found on many Gram-negative and some Gram-positive bacteria). | Absent |
29. | Microtubules | Absent or rare | Present |
30. | Absent | Present except in flowering plants. | |
31. | Cytoskeleton | May be absent | Present |
32. | Glycocalyx | Present | Only in some |
33. | Cytoplasmic streaming | Absent | Present |
34. | Cytoplasmic membrane | Does not contain sterols (except ) | Contains sterols |
35. | Cell wall | Complex structure containing protein, lipids, and peptidoglycans | Present for plant cells and fungi; otherwise absent |
36. | Muramic acid | Present | Absent |
37. | Movement | Simple , if present | Complex , if present |
38. | Respiration | Via cytoplasmic membrane | Via mitochondria |
39. | Energy production site | Electron transport chain located in the cell membrane | Within membrane-bound mitochondria |
40. | Metabolic rate | Higher due to larger surface area to volume ratio | Comparatively slow |
41. | Reproduction | Asexual (binary fission) | Sexual and asexual/ Mitotic division |
42. | Generation time | Shorter | Comparatively longer |
43. | Genetic Recombination | Partial, unidirectional transfer | Meiosis and fusion of gametes |
44. | Zygote | Merozygotic (partially diploid) | Diploid |
45. | Extrachromosomal DNA | Plasmid | Inside the mitochondria |
46. | DNA replication | Occurs in the cytoplasm. | Occurs in the nucleus. |
47. | Transcription and translation | Occurs simultaneously. | Transcription occurs in the nucleus and then translation occurs in the cytoplasm. |
Table of Contents
Interesting Science Videos
Prokaryotes are single-celled entities that are primitive in structure and function as they lack a membrane-bound nucleus and other organelles. The term “prokaryote” is derived from two Greek words, ‘pro’ meaning ‘before’ and ‘karyon’ meaning ‘nucleus’. Prokaryotes are considered to be the first living organisms of the earth as they are the simplest form of life.
Image created using biorender.com
The general characteristics of prokaryotic cells are listed below:
The structure of a prokaryote is not as complex as eukaryotic cells as they have primitive cell organelles. Generally, most prokaryotic cells have the following components/ parts:
As mentioned earlier, prokaryotic cells reproduce asexually without the formation of gametes. Some asexual modes of reproduction in prokaryotes are:
Steps of binary fission
Bacterial cells.
What are three examples of prokaryotes .
Any three examples of Prokaryotes are blue-green algae, E. coli, and mycoplasma.
Yes, Prokaryotes have ribosomes. The ribosome is of 70S type.
No, Prokaryotes do not have a membrane-bound nucleus, but they do have a nucleoid region in the cytoplasm that contains the genetic material.
No, Prokaryotes do not have mitochondria.
Yes, DNA is found as genetic material and extrachromosomal plastids in Prokaryotes .
Prokaryotes divide through asexual methods like binary fission and conjugation.
Eukaryotes are cells that are complex in structure and function as they have a membrane-bound well-defined nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles.
The general characteristics of eukaryotic cells are listed below:
Eukaryotes are much larger in size when compared with prokaryotic cells, having a volume about 10,000 times higher than prokaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells are formed of a number of membrane-bound and membrane-less organelles that all perform together to support the cell’s organization and function. The common component/ parts in eukaryotic cells are as follows:
Some eukaryotic cells can divide only by asexual means while other eukaryotic cells divide both sexually as well as asexually.
About Author
Anupama Sapkota
bur some of the pages are not fully seen especali tabled and charts
Very good notes. As a first year student I really loved your notes. May Almighty bless you Amen.
Your effort in putting this up is commendable. Well done
This information is really understandable hence readable. As a first year student doing BSc I really love your notes. Keep the good work up and God bless your work Amen.
Thank you so much
Great effort …
I reaLLy LIke The effoRt DeaR
Thanks a lot . A great effort. Thumbs up.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
This essay is about comparing and contrasting eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. It highlights the structural and functional differences, such as eukaryotic cells having a defined nucleus and membrane-bound organelles, while prokaryotic cells lack these features and have a simpler organization. The essay also discusses similarities, including the presence of a plasma membrane, DNA, and ribosomes in both cell types. It touches on the evolutionary relationship between the two, suggesting that eukaryotic cells evolved from prokaryotic ancestors through endosymbiosis. Understanding these distinctions and similarities is essential for fields like microbiology, genetics, and medicine.
How it works
Eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells epitomize the two cardinal configurations of cellular architecture observed in the biological realm. These cellular variants are delineated by their morphological and functional attributes, reflective of their evolutionary trajectories and ecological roles. Despite their disparities, both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells partake in vital life processes, rendering them compelling subjects for juxtaposition.
Eukaryotic cells typically manifest greater intricacy compared to prokaryotic cells. They harbor a distinct nucleus ensheathed within a nuclear envelope, housing their genomic material. This compartmentalization affords heightened regulation and oversight over genetic mechanisms.
Moreover, eukaryotic cells harbor a plethora of membrane-bound organelles, including mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, and lysosomes. These organelles execute specialized functions that augment the cellular efficacy and intricacy. For instance, mitochondria are lauded as the cellular powerhouses, facilitating adenosine triphosphate (ATP) synthesis through cellular respiration. Conversely, the endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus are implicated in protein and lipid biosynthesis and conveyance.
Prokaryotic cells, exemplified by bacteria and archaea, lack a well-defined nucleus and membrane-bound organelles. Their genomic material resides in a nucleoid region devoid of a membrane enclosure. This rudimentary organizational schema bespeaks their primordial evolutionary lineage and facilitates rapid proliferation and reproduction. Prokaryotes typically exhibit diminutive proportions compared to eukaryotes, augmenting their favorable surface-area-to-volume ratio. This ratio bestows advantages in nutrient assimilation and waste expulsion. Additionally, prokaryotic cells often possess cell walls comprised of peptidoglycan, providing structural reinforcement and protection. Certain prokaryotes also feature external appendages such as flagella and pili, which facilitate motility and adherence to substrates.
One of the most conspicuous disparities between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells pertains to their dimensions. Eukaryotic cells typically exhibit substantially larger dimensions, ranging from 10 to 100 micrometers in diameter, whereas prokaryotic cells typically measure between 0.1 and 5 micrometers. This pronounced size differential exerts profound influences on cellular intricacy and functionality. Larger eukaryotic cells can accommodate a myriad of organelles and internal structures, fostering intricate life processes. Conversely, the diminutive dimensions of prokaryotic cells expedite rapid molecular diffusion across the cellular membrane, bolstering their rapid growth rates and adaptability.
Despite these disparities, eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells share several fundamental attributes. Both cell types are ensconced by a plasma membrane, which orchestrates the ingress and egress of substances. Moreover, they both utilize deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as their hereditary blueprint and rely on ribosomes for protein synthesis. Foundational metabolic pathways such as glycolysis and the citric acid cycle are conserved across both cell types, underscoring their shared evolutionary lineage. Additionally, both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells exhibit a panoply of forms and functions, adapting to diverse environmental exigencies.
The evolutionary nexus between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells presents another intriguing facet. It is widely posited that eukaryotic cells originated from prokaryotic antecedents via endosymbiosis. As per this hypothesis, select prokaryotic cells were engulfed by larger host cells, eventually evolving into organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts. This symbiotic alliance conferred a discernible selective advantage, catalyzing the evolution of intricate eukaryotic cells. Substantiating evidence includes the presence of double membranes surrounding these organelles and their circular DNA akin to bacterial genomes.
Comprehending the dichotomies and parallels between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells is indispensable across diverse scientific domains, encompassing microbiology, genetics, and evolutionary biology. These insights enrich our understanding of cellular functionalities, the origins of life, and the evolution of complex organisms. Moreover, this comprehension engenders practical ramifications in medicine and biotechnology. For instance, discerning the distinctions between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells is pivotal in devising antibiotics efficacious against bacteria whilst sparing human cells.
In conclusion, while eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells diverge significantly in their morphological, functional, and dimensional attributes, they converge on fundamental biological processes and evolutionary origins. Eukaryotic cells are characterized by their compartmentalized nucleus and organelles, whereas prokaryotic cells exhibit a simpler, archaic morphology. Notwithstanding these disparities, both cellular variants execute indispensable life functions and contribute to terrestrial biodiversity. Recognizing these congruities and divergences amplifies our comprehension of biology and informs a spectrum of scientific and medical breakthroughs.
The Differences and Similarities Between Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-differences-and-similarities-between-eukaryotic-and-prokaryotic-cells/
"The Differences and Similarities Between Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-differences-and-similarities-between-eukaryotic-and-prokaryotic-cells/
PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Differences and Similarities Between Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-differences-and-similarities-between-eukaryotic-and-prokaryotic-cells/ [Accessed: 15 Sep. 2024]
"The Differences and Similarities Between Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed September 15, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-differences-and-similarities-between-eukaryotic-and-prokaryotic-cells/
"The Differences and Similarities Between Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-differences-and-similarities-between-eukaryotic-and-prokaryotic-cells/. [Accessed: 15-Sep-2024]
PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Differences and Similarities Between Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-differences-and-similarities-between-eukaryotic-and-prokaryotic-cells/ [Accessed: 15-Sep-2024]
Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.
Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!
Please check your inbox.
You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.
Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide
1. Tell Us Your Requirements
2. Pick your perfect writer
3. Get Your Paper and Pay
Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!
Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.
short deadlines
100% Plagiarism-Free
Certified writers
An Essay on the Differences between
Prokaryote & Eukaryote cells
All cellular organism fall into two natural groups, known as prokaryotes and eukaryotes. These two groups are fundamentally different. The terms prokaryote and eukaryote refer to the differences in the location of the DNA. In prokaryotes the DNA is not enclosed by nuclear membranes and lies free in the cytoplasm. The cells therefore lack true nuclei . The cells of eukaryotes , however, do contain true nuclei.
Eukaryotes arose around 1.2 thousand million years ago, and they evolved from prokaryotes which began around 3.5 thousand million years ago.
Although the location of the DNA in the cells is the major difference between the cell types, there are many more differences, which are explored below.
The sizes of the cells are vastly different, in prokaryotes the average diameter of the cell is 0.5-10μm. However, eukaryote cells are much larger in comparison, they are typically 1000-10000 times the volume of prokaryote cells, and their common diameter is 10-100μm.
Prokaryotes mainly arise in unicellular forms and examples of organisms that are prokaryotic is bacteria. Eukaryotes on the other hand arise in multicellular form and examples of eukaryotic celled organisms are fungi, plants, animals and the exception which are protoctist as many of them are unicellular.
As mentioned above the DNA lies free in the cytoplasm of prokaryotes, and lies linear and in a nucleus in eukaryotes. However, in prokaryotes the DNA is ‘naked’ and therefore is not associated with proteins or RNA to form chromosomes. While in eukaryotes the DNA is not naked and is associated with protein & RNA to form chromosomes.
In the two types of cells the ribosomes which are used in protein synthesis are slightly different, in prokaryotic cells the ribosome are 70S and smaller than the 80S larger ribosomes in eukaryotic cells.
In eukaryotic cells the ribosomes may be attached to the endoplasmic reticulum, while in prokaryotic cells there is no endoplasmic reticulum.
When it comes to organelles prokaryotes have relatively few, and the ones present have no envelope surrounding them. Furthermore, prokaryotes have few internal membranes, and if present they are usually only used for respiration or photosynthesis.
On the other hand eukaryotes have many organelles, and many are envelope bounded such as the nucleus or mitochondria. In addition, eukaryotes have a great number and diversity of organelles bounded by single membranes for example Golgi apparatus or lysosomes.
When it comes to respiration, prokaryotes like bacteria use mesosomes, the exceptions being cytoplasmic membranes in blue-green bacteria. While eukaryotes use the organelle- mitochondria, which combines glucose and oxygen in the process of aerobic respiration to give energy.
Eukaryotes in addition have the capabilities to photosynthesize due to organelles such as chloroplast in its cells. While prokaryotes also can photosynthesize but have no chloroplast they create food from membranes which show no stacking in it cells.
Nitrogen fixation is the ability to change the form of nitrogen. Eukaryotic cells do not have the ability to carry out nitrogen fixation, while on the other hand prokaryotic cells do.
The structures of the cell walls and compositions of them are greatly different in the cells. In eukaryotes the cell walls of green plants and fungi are rigid and contain polysaccharides; cellulose is the main strengthening compound in plant walls and chitin in fungal walls, however, there are none in animal cells.
However, prokaryotes cell walls are rigid and contain polysaccharides with amino acids, and murein is the main strengthening compound.
Finally when it comes to movement of the cells, flagellum is used in cells; however the flagellum in prokaryotes and eukaryotes are slightly different. In prokaryote cells the flagella is simple and lacking in microtubules, it is also extra cellular, and it has an average diameter of 20nm.
On the other hand in eukaryotes the structure is complex with ‘9+2’ arrangement of microtubules, it is also intracellular, and the eukaryote flagella also have a diameter of around 200nm.
In conclusion, as seen there are many differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, in functions, structure and processes.
(855) 4-ESSAYS
The differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells.
The similarities and differences between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic cells are the two main types of cell found in living organisms. They share many similarities and also many differences. These differences are key to how they function and which jobs they are suitable to perform. Prokaryotic cells are cells that contain a very primitive nucleus as pro- means before and karyon is a Greek word, meaning nucleus. Prokaryotic cells are found in organisms such as bacteria, most commonly eubacteria and archae bacteria. Eukaryotic cells are therefore are found in all other living organisms, the name implying that there is a proper nucleus present. As there is no nucleus present in prokaryotic cells the DNA helix is a single coiled chromosome that is unsupported and so can float freely around the cell, however in a eukaryotic cell the DNA helix is made up of linear chromosomes supported by the histone protein. In Eukaryotic cells there is also a distinct nuclear membrane. Prokaryotic cells are smaller than Eukaryotic cells, according to "Pharmaceutical Microbiology" the majority of bacteria fall within the general dimensions of 0.75 to 4mm compared to the size of common eukaryotic cells which can be up to 40 times larger than Prokaryotic cells and measure between 50 and 150mm. Prokaryotic cells and Eukaryotic cells both can contain a cell wall however in prokaryotic cells the cell wall is peptidoglycan (a mixture of sugar and protein) if the organism is a eubacteria, or pseudomurein if the organism is a archae bacteria whereas in eukarotic cells a cell wall is only present if the organism is a plant or a fungi and the cell wall is constructed of cellulose in plants or chitin if the organism is a fungi. Prokaryotic cells and Eukaryotic cells can both contain cytoplasm. That cytoplasm is made of fatty acids joined to glycerol by an ether linkage in both eubacteria, which is a type of prokaryotic cell and in eukaryotic cells.
1. compare the structure of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells.
Compare the structure of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. ... Viruses are neither prokaryotic nor eukaryotic. ... Eukaryotic cells are, on average, 1000 - 10000 times the volume of prokaryotic cells. ... The major difference between the two types of cell is that unlike eukaryotic cells, prokaryotic cells lack membrane-bound organelles, and also a cytoskeleton. ... Like the eukaryotic cell, the prokaryotic cell is filled with cytosol. ...
There are two types of cells: eukaryotic and prokaryotic and these two cell types reproduce or divide in two main ways, either Mitosis or Meiosis. ... Most cells both eukaryotic and prokaryotic divide through the Mitosis processes which is asexual. An example of this might be eukaryotic human skin cells and or prokaryotic bacteria; they replicate themselves exactly but not sexually. Eukaryotic cells are different that the prokaryotic cells however because they contain much more DNA and their reproduction process is more complicated. ... The main differences between Meiosis and Mitosis is that ...
Animal cells are known as being Eukaryotic, literally translated as "good nucleus" indicating that the cell consists of many organelles including the nucleus. ... This water repellent layer acts as a barrier between the inside and outside of the cell, making it highly impermeable and preventing most molecules from passing freely into or out of the cell. ... The Difference Between Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Cells There are many similarities between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells they both have DNA as their genetic material, they are both membrane bound and both have ribosomes. ... Due to thi...
The other difference is that the viral release occurs by budding. ... Prokarytoic cells do not have a nucleus, like eukaryotic cells do. Prokaryotic cells are very small and except for ribosomes, they do not have the cytoplasmic organelles found in eukaryotic cells. ... The cyanobacteria were called blue-green algae and were classified with eukaryotic algae, but now we know that they a prokaryotic. ... Lichens contain both fungus and alga; mycorrhizae is a symbiotic relationship of mutual benefit between soil fungi and roots of plants. ...
Important Facts the smallest unit of life is the cell instructions for development are contained in DNA collectively, all of the chemical processes in a cell are called metabolism producers often obtain energy from the sun homeostasis refers to the ability to maintain a constant internal environment cells in domains archaea and eubacteria lack nucleii plants are multicellular producers an educated guess might be called a hypothesis science is based on evidence philosophy is not a step in the scientific method an atom is the smallest unit of substance that retains the properties of the subst...
Kingdom Protista is a part of domain (also called "superkingdom") eukarya, which includes all organism composed of eukaryotic cells. ... Subclass Pelobiontae includes one genus, Pelomyxa, large cells which lack almost every characteristic of eukaryotic cells except the existence of a membrane-bound nucleus; these cells' nuclei divide like bacterial nucleoids. ... It is unknown whether microsporans are sexual or asexual, and some have ribosomes that resemble the ribosomes of prokaryotic cells. ... of the members of this phylum alternate between diploid and haploid generations. ... Apico...
As for eukaryotic cells, according to Lynn Margulis's hypothesis, they arose from what is called a symbiont relationship. Lynn Margulis believed that mitochondra were originally independent prokaryotic aerobic individuals, living on a symbiont relationship with another prokaryote. The aerobic prokaryote was enclosed by the bacterium's cell surface membrane in the process of endocytosis, which is made easy by the absence of a cell wall in the bacterium. ... The host cell received energy that the aerobic prokaryote released. ... A similar process occurred later with the host cell and p...
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Nature volume 633 , pages 295–305 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
73 Altmetric
Metrics details
The origin of the eukaryotic cell, with its compartmentalized nature and generally large size compared with bacterial and archaeal cells, represents a cornerstone event in the evolution of complex life on Earth. In a process referred to as eukaryogenesis, the eukaryotic cell is believed to have evolved between approximately 1.8 and 2.7 billion years ago from its archaeal ancestors, with a symbiosis with a bacterial (proto-mitochondrial) partner being a key event. In the tree of life, the branch separating the first from the last common ancestor of all eukaryotes is long and lacks evolutionary intermediates. As a result, the timing and driving forces of the emergence of complex eukaryotic features remain poorly understood. During the past decade, environmental and comparative genomic studies have revealed vital details about the identity and nature of the host cell and the proto-mitochondrial endosymbiont, enabling a critical reappraisal of hypotheses underlying the symbiotic origin of the eukaryotic cell. Here we outline our current understanding of the key players and events underlying the emergence of cellular complexity during the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition and discuss potential avenues of future research that might provide new insights into the enigmatic origin of the eukaryotic cell.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
24,99 € / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
185,98 € per year
only 3,65 € per issue
Buy this article
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Woese, C. R. & Fox, G. E. Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 74 , 5088–5090 (1977). This seminal paper was the first to recognize archaea—then called archaebacteria—as a separate prokaryotic group from bacteria .
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Woese, C. R. Bacterial evolution. Microbiol. Rev. 51 , 221–271 (1987).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Woese, C. R., Kandler, O. & Wheelis, M. L. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains archaea, bacteria, and eucarya. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 87 , 4576–4579 (1990).
Huet, J., Schnabel, R., Sentenac, A. & Zillig, W. Archaebacteria and eukaryotes possess DNA-dependent RNA polymerases of a common type. EMBO J. 2 , 1291–1294 (1983).
Ouzounis, C. & Sander, C. TFIIB, an evolutionary link between the transcription machineries of archaebacteria and eukaryotes. Cell 71 , 189–190 (1992).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Myllykallio, H. et al. Bacterial mode of replication with eukaryotic-like machinery in a hyperthermophilic archaeon. Science 288 , 2212–2215 (2000).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Williams, T. A., Cox, C. J., Foster, P. G., Szöllősi, G. J. & Embley, T. M. Phylogenomics provides robust support for a two-domains tree of life. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 , 138–147 (2020). Using better-fitting models and additional in-depth analyses, this study scrutinized previous studies that reported 3D trees, resulting in robust 2D trees that show a close relationship between Heimdallarchaeia and eukaryotes .
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Eme, L. et al. Inference and reconstruction of the heimdallarchaeial ancestry of eukaryotes. Nature 618 , 992–999 (2023). This study presented the expanding diversity of Asgard archaea, the Hodarchaeales–sister relationship of eukaryotes based on elaborate phylogenomics, the presence of additional ESPs in Asgard genomes and the reconstructed gene content of Asgard ancestral nodes .
Williams, T. A., Foster, P. G., Cox, C. J. & Embley, T. M. An archaeal origin of eukaryotes supports only two primary domains of life. Nature 504 , 231–236 (2013).
Betts, H. C. et al. Integrated genomic and fossil evidence illuminates life’s early evolution and eukaryote origin. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 1556–1562 (2018).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Mahendrarajah, T. A. et al. ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life. Nat. Commun. 14 , 7456 (2023).
Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Eme, L., Sharpe, S. C., Brown, M. W. & Roger, A. J. On the age of eukaryotes: evaluating evidence from fossils and molecular clocks. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6 , a016139 (2014).
Cohen, P. A. & Kodner, R. B. The earliest history of eukaryotic life: uncovering an evolutionary story through the integration of biological and geological data. Trends Ecol. Evol. 37 , 246–256 (2022).
Brocks, J. J. et al. Lost world of complex life and the late rise of the eukaryotic crown. Nature 618 , 767–773 (2023).
Porter, S. M. & Riedman, L. A. Frameworks for interpreting the early fossil record of eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 77 , 173–191 (2023).
Koumandou, V. L. et al. Molecular paleontology and complexity in the last eukaryotic common ancestor. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 48 , 373–396 (2013).
Donoghue, P. C. J. et al. Defining eukaryotes to dissect eukaryogenesis. Curr. Biol. 33 , R919–R929 (2023).
Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I., Mekhedov, S. L., Mirkin, B. G. & Koonin, E. V. Ancestral paralogs and pseudoparalogs and their role in the emergence of the eukaryotic cell. Nucleic Acids Res. 33 , 4626–4638 (2005). This paper provided a first systematic estimate of the number of gene acquisitions, duplications and inventions during eukaryogenesis based on the homology between eukaryotic clusters of orthologues and between eukaryotic and prokaryotic gene clusters .
O’Malley, M. A., Leger, M. M., Wideman, J. G. & Ruiz-Trillo, I. Concepts of the last eukaryotic common ancestor. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 338–344 (2019).
Eme, L., Spang, A., Lombard, J., Stairs, C. W. & Ettema, T. J. G. Archaea and the origin of eukaryotes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 15 , 711–723 (2017).
Dacks, J. B. et al. The changing view of eukaryogenesis—fossils, cells, lineages and how they all come together. J. Cell Sci. 129 , 3695–3703 (2016).
Woese, C. R. & Olsen, G. J. Archaebacterial phylogeny: perspectives on the Urkingdoms. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 7 , 161–177 (1986).
Lake, J. A. Origin of the eukaryotic nucleus determined by rate-invariant analysis of rRNA sequences. Nature 331 , 184–186 (1988).
Gouy, M. & Li, W.-H. Phylogenetic analysis based on rRNA sequences supports the archaebacterial rather than the eocyte tree. Nature 339 , 145–147 (1989).
Iwabe, N., Kuma, K., Hasegawa, M., Osawa, S. & Miyata, T. Evolutionary relationship of archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes inferred from phylogenetic trees of duplicated genes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86 , 9355–9359 (1989).
Baldauf, S. L., Palmer, J. D. & Doolittle, W. F. The root of the universal tree and the origin of eukaryotes based on elongation factor phylogeny. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93 , 7749–7754 (1996).
Lake, J. A., Henderson, E., Oakes, M. & Clark, M. W. Eocytes: a new ribosome structure indicates a kingdom with a close relationship to eukaryotes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81 , 3786–3790 (1984). On the basis of ribosome structures, the authors of this study postulated the eocyte hypothesis, in which eukaryotes are most closely related to a specific group of archaea (the 2D tree) .
Rivera, M. C. & Lake, J. A. Evidence that eukaryotes and eocyte prokaryotes are immediate relatives. Science 257 , 74–76 (1992).
Brown, J. R., Douady, C. J., Italia, M. J., Marshall, W. E. & Stanhope, M. J. Universal trees based on large combined protein sequence data sets. Nat. Genet. 28 , 281–285 (2001).
Ciccarelli, F. D. et al. Toward automatic reconstruction of a highly resolved tree of life. Science 311 , 1283–1287 (2006).
Cox, C. J., Foster, P. G., Hirt, R. P., Harris, S. R. & Embley, T. M. The archaebacterial origin of eukaryotes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 20356–20361 (2008). Using phylogenetic models that take compositional changes into account, the 2D tree was robustly recovered for the first time in this phylogenomics study .
Foster, P. G., Cox, C. J. & Embley, T. M. The primary divisions of life: a phylogenomic approach employing composition-heterogeneous methods. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364 , 2197–2207 (2009).
Guy, L. & Ettema, T. J. G. The archaeal ‘TACK’ superphylum and the origin of eukaryotes. Trends Microbiol. 19 , 580–587 (2011).
Kelly, S., Wickstead, B. & Gull, K. Archaeal phylogenomics provides evidence in support of a methanogenic origin of the archaea and a thaumarchaeal origin for the eukaryotes. Proc. R. Soc. B 278 , 1009–1018 (2011).
Lasek-Nesselquist, E. & Gogarten, J. P. The effects of model choice and mitigating bias on the ribosomal tree of life. Mol. Phylogenetics Evol. 69 , 17–38 (2013).
Article Google Scholar
Guy, L., Saw, J. H. & Ettema, T. J. G. The archaeal legacy of eukaryotes: a phylogenomic perspective. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6 , a016022 (2014).
Williams, T. A. & Embley, T. M. Archaeal “dark matter” and the origin of eukaryotes. Genome Biol. Evol. 6 , 474–481 (2014).
Raymann, K., Brochier-Armanet, C. & Gribaldo, S. The two-domain tree of life is linked to a new root for the Archaea. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 6670–6675 (2015).
Spang, A. et al. Complex archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nature 521 , 173–179 (2015). This paper described the discovery of the first Asgard archaeon , Lokiarchaeum , and showed both its close relationship with eukaryotes and the presence of multiple new ESPs in its genome .
Seitz, K. W., Lazar, C. S., Hinrichs, K.-U., Teske, A. P. & Baker, B. J. Genomic reconstruction of a novel, deeply branched sediment archaeal phylum with pathways for acetogenesis and sulfur reduction. ISME J. 10 , 1696–1705 (2016).
Zaremba-Niedzwiedzka, K. et al. Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity. Nature 541 , 353–358 (2017).
Spang, A. et al. Proposal of the reverse flow model for the origin of the eukaryotic cell based on comparative analyses of Asgard archaeal metabolism. Nat. Microbiol. 4 , 1138–1148 (2019).
Seitz, K. W. et al. Asgard archaea capable of anaerobic hydrocarbon cycling. Nat. Commun. 10 , 1822 (2019).
Imachi, H. et al. Isolation of an archaeon at the prokaryote–eukaryote interface. Nature 577 , 519–525 (2020). This study presented the first cultured Asgard archaeon, the lokiarchaeon Candidatus P. syntrophicum, showing remarkable cell physiology (see also ref. 50) .
Liu, Y. et al. Expanded diversity of Asgard archaea and their relationships with eukaryotes. Nature 593 , 553–557 (2021).
Sun, J. et al. Recoding of stop codons expands the metabolic potential of two novel Asgardarchaeota lineages. ISME Commun. 1 , 30 (2021).
Aouad, M. et al. A divide-and-conquer phylogenomic approach based on character supermatrices resolves early steps in the evolution of the archaea. BMC Ecol. Evo. 22 , 1 (2022).
Wu, F. et al. Unique mobile elements and scalable gene flow at the prokaryote–eukaryote boundary revealed by circularized Asgard archaea genomes. Nat. Microbiol. 7 , 200–212 (2022).
Xie, R. et al. Expanding Asgard members in the domain of archaea sheds new light on the origin of eukaryotes. Sci. China Life Sci. 65 , 818–829 (2022).
Rodrigues-Oliveira, T. et al. Actin cytoskeleton and complex cell architecture in an Asgard archaeon. Nature 613 , 332–339 (2023).
Da Cunha, V., Gaia, M., Gadelle, D., Nasir, A. & Forterre, P. Lokiarchaea are close relatives of Euryarchaeota, not bridging the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. PLoS Genet. 13 , e1006810 (2017).
Stairs, C. W. & Ettema, T. J. G. The archaeal roots of the eukaryotic dynamic actin cytoskeleton. Curr. Biol. 30 , R521–R526 (2020).
Klinger, C. M., Spang, A., Dacks, J. B. & Ettema, T. J. G. Tracing the archaeal origins of eukaryotic membrane-trafficking system building blocks. Mol. Biol. Evol. 33 , 1528–1541 (2016).
Vosseberg, J. et al. Timing the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity with ancient duplications. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5 , 92–100 (2021). This paper reconstructed the numerous gene duplications that occurred during eukaryogenesis from phylogenetic trees and inferred their relative timing, also in comparison with gene transfer events, using the branch lengths approach adapted from ref. 127 .
Szöllősi, G. J., Rosikiewicz, W., Boussau, B., Tannier, E. & Daubin, V. Efficient exploration of the space of reconciled gene trees. Syst. Biol. 62 , 901–912 (2013).
Williams, T. A. et al. Parameter estimation and species tree rooting using ALE and GeneRax. Genome Biol. Evol. 15 , evad134 (2023).
Akıl, C. & Robinson, R. C. Genomes of Asgard archaea encode profilins that regulate actin. Nature 562 , 439–443 (2018). This article is the first of a series of biochemical papers investigating the molecular function of Asgard ESPs by expressing them in heterologous systems, in this case focusing on the interaction between Asgard profilin and eukaryotic actin .
Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar
Akıl, C. et al. Insights into the evolution of regulated actin dynamics via characterization of primitive gelsolin/cofilin proteins from Asgard archaea. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 19904–19913 (2020).
Survery, S. et al. Heimdallarchaea encodes profilin with eukaryotic-like actin regulation and polyproline binding. Commun. Biol. 4 , 1024 (2021).
Akıl, C. et al. Structure and dynamics of Odinarchaeota tubulin and the implications for eukaryotic microtubule evolution. Sci. Adv. 8 , eabm2225 (2022).
Leung, K. F., Dacks, J. B. & Field, M. C. Evolution of the multivesicular body ESCRT machinery; retention across the eukaryotic lineage. Traffic 9 , 1698–1716 (2008).
Hatano, T. et al. Asgard archaea shed light on the evolutionary origins of the eukaryotic ubiquitin–ESCRT machinery. Nat. Commun. 13 , 3398 (2022).
Neveu, E., Khalifeh, D., Salamin, N. & Fasshauer, D. Prototypic SNARE proteins are encoded in the genomes of Heimdallarchaeota, potentially bridging the gap between the prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Curr. Biol. 30 , 2468–2480 (2020).
Avcı, B. et al. Spatial separation of ribosomes and DNA in Asgard archaeal cells. ISME J. 16 , 606–610 (2022).
Gray, M. W., Burger, G. & Lang, B. F. Mitochondrial evolution. Science 283 , 1476–1481 (1999).
Roger, A. J., Muñoz-Gómez, S. A. & Kamikawa, R. The origin and diversification of mitochondria. Curr. Biol. 27 , R1177–R1192 (2017).
Yang, D., Oyaizu, Y., Oyaizu, H., Olsen, G. J. & Woese, C. R. Mitochondrial origins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 82 , 4443–4447 (1985).
Fitzpatrick, D. A., Creevey, C. J. & McInerney, J. O. Genome phylogenies indicate a meaningful α-proteobacterial phylogeny and support a grouping of the mitochondria with the Rickettsiales. Mol. Biol. Evol. 23 , 74–85 (2006).
Williams, K. P., Sobral, B. W. & Dickerman, A. W. A robust species tree for the Alphaproteobacteria. J. Bacteriol. 189 , 4578–4586 (2007).
Thrash, J. C. et al. Phylogenomic evidence for a common ancestor of mitochondria and the SAR11 clade. Sci. Rep. 1 , 13 (2011).
Georgiades, K., Madoui, M.-A., Le, P., Robert, C. & Raoult, D. Phylogenomic analysis of Odyssella thessalonicensis fortifies the common origin of Rickettsiales, Pelagibacter ubique and Reclimonas americana mitochondrion. PLoS ONE 6 , e24857 (2011).
Sassera, D. et al. Phylogenomic evidence for the presence of a flagellum and cbb 3 oxidase in the free-living mitochondrial ancestor. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28 , 3285–3296 (2011).
Rodríguez-Ezpeleta, N. & Embley, T. M. The SAR11 group of alpha-proteobacteria is not related to the origin of mitochondria. PLoS ONE 7 , e30520 (2012).
Viklund, J., Martijn, J., Ettema, T. J. G. & Andersson, S. G. E. Comparative and phylogenomic evidence that the alphaproteobacterium HIMB59 is not a member of the oceanic SAR11 clade. PLoS ONE 8 , e78858 (2013).
Wang, Z. & Wu, M. Phylogenomic reconstruction indicates mitochondrial ancestor was an energy parasite. PLoS ONE 9 , e110685 (2014).
Wang, Z. & Wu, M. An integrated phylogenomic approach toward pinpointing the origin of mitochondria. Sci. Rep. 5 , 7949 (2015).
Martijn, J., Vosseberg, J., Guy, L., Offre, P. & Ettema, T. J. G. Deep mitochondrial origin outside the sampled Alphaproteobacteria. Nature 557 , 101–105 (2018). This study recovered several novel marine alphaproteobacterial groups and performed careful phylogenomic analyses to address long-branch and compositional artefacts, revealing the novel Alphaproteobacteria–sister position of mitochondria .
Fan, L. et al. Phylogenetic analyses with systematic taxon sampling show that mitochondria branch within Alphaproteobacteria. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 , 1213–1219 (2020).
Wang, S. & Luo, H. Dating Alphaproteobacteria evolution with eukaryotic fossils. Nat. Commun. 12 , 3324 (2021).
Muñoz-Gómez, S. A. et al. Site-and-branch-heterogeneous analyses of an expanded dataset favour mitochondria as sister to known Alphaproteobacteria. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6 , 253–262 (2022). This study corroborated the Alphaproteobacteria–sister relationship of mitochondria using a newly developed model that accounts for compositional heterogeneity across sites and branches .
Martijn, J., Vosseberg, J., Guy, L., Offre, P. & Ettema, T. J. G. Phylogenetic affiliation of mitochondria with Alpha-II and Rickettsiales is an artefact. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6 , 1829–1831 (2022).
Fan, L. et al. Reply to: Phylogenetic affiliation of mitochondria with Alpha-II and Rickettsiales is an artefact. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6 , 1832–1835 (2022).
Ettema, T. J. G. & Andersson, S. G. E. The α-proteobacteria: the Darwin finches of the bacterial world. Biol. Lett. 5 , 429–432 (2009).
Martin, W. F., Garg, S. & Zimorski, V. Endosymbiotic theories for eukaryote origin. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370 , 20140330 (2015).
Martin, W. & Müller, M. The hydrogen hypothesis for the first eukaryote. Nature 392 , 37–41 (1998).
Sousa, F. L., Neukirchen, S., Allen, J. F., Lane, N. & Martin, W. F. Lokiarchaeon is hydrogen dependent. Nat. Microbiol. 1 , 16034 (2016).
Moreira, D. & López-García, P. Symbiosis between methanogenic archaea and δ-proteobacteria as the origin of eukaryotes: the syntrophic hypothesis. J. Mol. Evol. 47 , 517–530 (1998).
López-García, P. & Moreira, D. The syntrophy hypothesis for the origin of eukaryotes revisited. Nat. Microbiol. 5 , 655–667 (2020).
Bulzu, P.-A. et al. Casting light on Asgardarchaeota metabolism in a sunlit microoxic niche. Nat. Microbiol. 4 , 1129–1137 (2019).
Mills, D. B. et al. Eukaryogenesis and oxygen in Earth history. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6 , 520–532 (2022).
Muñoz-Gómez, S. A., Wideman, J. G., Roger, A. J. & Slamovits, C. H. The origin of mitochondrial cristae from Alphaproteobacteria. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34 , 943–956 (2017).
PubMed Google Scholar
Gabaldón, T. & Huynen, M. A. Reconstruction of the proto-mitochondrial metabolism. Science 301 , 609–609 (2003).
Gabaldón, T. & Huynen, M. A. From endosymbiont to host-controlled organelle: the hijacking of mitochondrial protein synthesis and metabolism. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3 , e219 (2007).
Stairs, C. W., Leger, M. M. & Roger, A. J. Diversity and origins of anaerobic metabolism in mitochondria and related organelles. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370 , 20140326 (2015).
Stairs, C. W. et al. Chlamydial contribution to anaerobic metabolism during eukaryotic evolution. Sci. Adv. 6 , eabb7258 (2020).
Speijer, D. Alternating terminal electron-acceptors at the basis of symbiogenesis: How oxygen ignited eukaryotic evolution. BioEssays 39 , 1600174 (2017).
Cavalier-Smith, T. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 52 , 297–354 (2002).
Martijn, J. & Ettema, T. J. G. From archaeon to eukaryote: the evolutionary dark ages of the eukaryotic cell. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 41 , 451–457 (2013).
Zachar, I., Szilágyi, A., Számadó, S. & Szathmáry, E. Farming the mitochondrial ancestor as a model of endosymbiotic establishment by natural selection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , E1504–E1510 (2018).
Baum, D. A. & Baum, B. An inside-out origin for the eukaryotic cell. BMC Biol. 12 , 76 (2014).
Mills, D. B. The origin of phagocytosis in Earth history. Interface Focus 10 , 20200019 (2020).
Bremer, N., Tria, F. D. K., Skejo, J., Garg, S. G. & Martin, W. F. Ancestral state reconstructions trace mitochondria but not phagocytosis to the last eukaryotic common ancestor. Genome Biol. Evol. 14 , evac079 (2022).
Yutin, N., Wolf, M. Y., Wolf, Y. I. & Koonin, E. V. The origins of phagocytosis and eukaryogenesis. Biol. Direct 4 , 9 (2009).
Hugoson, E., Guliaev, A., Ammunét, T. & Guy, L. Host adaptation in Legionellales Is 1.9 Ga, coincident with eukaryogenesis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 39 , msac037 (2022).
Martin, W. F., Tielens, A. G. M., Mentel, M., Garg, S. G. & Gould, S. B. The physiology of phagocytosis in the context of mitochondrial origin. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 81 , e00008–e00017 (2017).
Hampl, V., Čepička, I. & Eliáš, M. Was the mitochondrion necessary to start eukaryogenesis? Trends Microbiol. 27 , 96–104 (2019).
Shiratori, T., Suzuki, S., Kakizawa, Y. & Ishida, K. Phagocytosis-like cell engulfment by a planctomycete bacterium. Nat. Commun. 10 , 5529 (2019).
Burns, J. A., Pittis, A. A. & Kim, E. Gene-based predictive models of trophic modes suggest Asgard archaea are not phagocytotic. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 697–704 (2018).
Cavalier-Smith, T. Archaebacteria and archezoa. Nature 339 , 100–101 (1989).
Article ADS Google Scholar
Embley, T. M. & Hirt, R. P. Early branching eukaryotes? Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 8 , 624–629 (1998).
Ettema, T. J. G. Evolution: mitochondria in the second act. Nature 531 , 39–40 (2016).
Lane, N. & Martin, W. The energetics of genome complexity. Nature 467 , 929–934 (2010).
Lane, N. Energetics and genetics across the prokaryote–eukaryote divide. Biol. Direct 6 , 35 (2011).
Booth, A. & Doolittle, W. F. Eukaryogenesis, how special really? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 10278–10285 (2015).
Lynch, M. & Marinov, G. K. The bioenergetic costs of a gene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 15690–15695 (2015).
Koonin, E. V. Energetics and population genetics at the root of eukaryotic cellular and genomic complexity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 15777–15778 (2015).
Lynch, M. & Marinov, G. K. Membranes, energetics, and evolution across the prokaryote–eukaryote divide. eLife 6 , e20437 (2017).
Lane, N. Serial endosymbiosis or singular event at the origin of eukaryotes? J. Theor. Biol. 434 , 58–67 (2017).
Chiyomaru, K. & Takemoto, K. Revisiting the hypothesis of an energetic barrier to genome complexity between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7 , 191859 (2020).
Lane, N. How energy flow shapes cell evolution. Curr. Biol. 30 , R471–R476 (2020).
Schavemaker, P. E. & Muñoz-Gómez, S. A. The role of mitochondrial energetics in the origin and diversification of eukaryotes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6 , 1307–1317 (2022).
Volland, J.-M. et al. A centimeter-long bacterium with DNA contained in metabolically active, membrane-bound organelles. Science 376 , 1453–1458 (2022).
Greening, C. & Lithgow, T. Formation and function of bacterial organelles. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 18 , 677–689 (2020).
Küper, U., Meyer, C., Müller, V., Rachel, R. & Huber, H. Energized outer membrane and spatial separation of metabolic processes in the hyperthermophilic Archaeon Ignicoccus hospitalis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107 , 3152–3156 (2010).
Wiegand, S., Jogler, M. & Jogler, C. On the maverick planctomycetes. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 42 , 739–760 (2018).
Katayama, T. et al. Isolation of a member of the candidate phylum ‘Atribacteria’ reveals a unique cell membrane structure. Nat. Commun. 11 , 6381 (2020).
Pittis, A. A. & Gabaldón, T. Late acquisition of mitochondria by a host with chimaeric prokaryotic ancestry. Nature 531 , 101–104 (2016). This study presented a novel approach to use phylogenetic branch lengths to infer the relative timing of gene acquisitions during eukaryogenesis, pointing to rampant bacterial gene flow to stem eukaryotes prior to the proto-mitochondrial acquisition .
Gabaldón, T. Relative timing of mitochondrial endosymbiosis and the “pre-mitochondrial symbioses” hypothesis. IUBMB Life 70 , 1188–1196 (2018).
Vosseberg, J., Schinkel, M., Gremmen, S. & Snel, B. The spread of the first introns in proto-eukaryotic paralogs. Commun. Biol. 5 , 476 (2022).
Susko, E., Steel, M. & Roger, A. J. Conditions under which distributions of edge length ratios on phylogenetic trees can be used to order evolutionary events. J. Theor. Biol. 526 , 110788 (2021).
Article MathSciNet CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Tricou, T., Tannier, E. & de Vienne, D. M. Ghost lineages can invalidate or even reverse findings regarding gene flow. PLoS Biol. 20 , e3001776 (2022).
Fritz-Laylin, L. K. et al. The genome of Naegleria gruberi illuminates early eukaryotic versatility. Cell 140 , 631–642 (2010).
Huynen, M. A., Duarte, I. & Szklarczyk, R. Loss, replacement and gain of proteins at the origin of the mitochondria. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1827 , 224–231 (2013).
Timmis, J. N., Ayliffe, M. A., Huang, C. Y. & Martin, W. Endosymbiotic gene transfer: organelle genomes forge eukaryotic chromosomes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5 , 123–135 (2004).
Karnkowska, A. et al. A eukaryote without a mitochondrial organelle. Curr. Biol. 26 , 1274–1284 (2016).
Gabaldón, T. et al. Origin and evolution of the peroxisomal proteome. Biol. Direct 1 , 8 (2006).
Rochette, N. C., Brochier-Armanet, C. & Gouy, M. Phylogenomic test of the hypotheses for the evolutionary origin of eukaryotes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 31 , 832–845 (2014).
Irwin, N. A. T., Pittis, A. A., Richards, T. A. & Keeling, P. J. Systematic evaluation of horizontal gene transfer between eukaryotes and viruses. Nat. Microbiol. 7 , 327–336 (2022).
Ku, C. et al. Endosymbiotic origin and differential loss of eukaryotic genes. Nature 524 , 427–432 (2015).
Gould, S. B., Garg, S. G. & Martin, W. F. Bacterial vesicle secretion and the evolutionary origin of the eukaryotic endomembrane system. Trends Microbiol. 24 , 525–534 (2016).
Coleman, G. A., Pancost, R. D. & Williams, T. A. Investigating the origins of membrane phospholipid biosynthesis genes using outgroup-free rooting. Genome Biol. Evol. 11 , 883–898 (2019).
Volker, C. & Lupas, A. N. in The Proteasome–Ubiquitin Protein Degradation Pathway (eds Zwickl, P. & Baumeister, W.) 1–22 (Springer, 2002).
Vosseberg, J., Stolker, D., von der Dunk, S. H. A. & Snel, B. Integrating phylogenetics with intron positions illuminates the origin of the complex spliceosome. Mol. Biol. Evol. 40 , msad011 (2023).
Tromer, E. C., Hooff, J. J. E., van, Kops, G. J. P. L. & Snel, B. Mosaic origin of the eukaryotic kinetochore. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 12873–12882 (2019).
Findeisen, P. et al. Six subgroups and extensive recent duplications characterize the evolution of the eukaryotic tubulin protein family. Genome Biol. Evol. 6 , 2274–2288 (2014).
Muñoz-Gómez, S. A., Bilolikar, G., Wideman, J. G. & Geiler-Samerotte, K. Constructive neutral evolution 20 years later. J. Mol. Evol. 89 , 172–182 (2021).
Dacks, J. B. & Field, M. C. Evolution of the eukaryotic membrane-trafficking system: origin, tempo and mode. J. Cell Sci. 120 , 2977–2985 (2007).
Dacks, J. B. & Field, M. C. Evolutionary origins and specialisation of membrane transport. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 53 , 70–76 (2018).
Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596 , 583–589 (2021).
Baek, M. et al. Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network. Science 373 , 871–876 (2021).
Ekman, D., Björklund, Å. K., Frey-Skött, J. & Elofsson, A. Multi-domain proteins in the three kingdoms of life: orphan domains and other unassigned regions. J. Mol. Biol. 348 , 231–243 (2005).
Liu, J. & Rost, B. Comparing function and structure between entire proteomes. Protein Sci. 10 , 1970–1979 (2001).
Xue, B., Dunker, A. K. & Uversky, V. N. Orderly order in protein intrinsic disorder distribution: disorder in 3500 proteomes from viruses and the three domains of life. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 30 , 137–149 (2012).
Colnaghi, M., Lane, N. & Pomiankowski, A. Genome expansion in early eukaryotes drove the transition from lateral gene transfer to meiotic sex. eLife 9 , e58873 (2020).
van Dijk, B., Bertels, F., Stolk, L., Takeuchi, N. & Rainey, P. B. Transposable elements promote the evolution of genome streamlining. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 377 , 20200477 (2022).
Colnaghi, M., Lane, N. & Pomiankowski, A. Repeat sequences limit the effectiveness of lateral gene transfer and favored the evolution of meiotic sex in early eukaryotes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2205041119 (2022).
Gilbert, W. Why genes in pieces? Nature 271 , 501–501 (1978).
Liu, M. & Grigoriev, A. Protein domains correlate strongly with exons in multiple eukaryotic genomes – evidence of exon shuffling? Trends Genet. 20 , 399–403 (2004).
Grau-Bové, X. et al. Dynamics of genomic innovation in the unicellular ancestry of animals. eLife 6 , e26036 (2017).
Ocaña-Pallarès, E. et al. Divergent genomic trajectories predate the origin of animals and fungi. Nature 609 , 747–753 (2022).
Méheust, R. et al. Formation of chimeric genes with essential functions at the origin of eukaryotes. BMC Biol. 16 , 30 (2018).
Tamarit, D. et al. Description of Asgardarchaeum abyssi gen. nov. spec. nov., a novel species within the class Asgardarchaeia and phylum Asgardarchaeota in accordance with the SeqCode. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 47 , 126525 (2024).
Delsuc, F., Brinkmann, H. & Philippe, H. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6 , 361–375 (2005).
Kapli, P., Yang, Z. & Telford, M. J. Phylogenetic tree building in the genomic age. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21 , 428–444 (2020).
Steenwyk, J. L., Li, Y., Zhou, X., Shen, X.-X. & Rokas, A. Incongruence in the phylogenomics era. Nat. Rev. Genet. 24 , 834–850 (2023).
Fleming, J. F., Valero-Gracia, A. & Struck, T. H. Identifying and addressing methodological incongruence in phylogenomics: a review. Evol. Appl. 16 , 1087–1104 (2023).
Foster, P. G. et al. Recoding amino acids to a reduced alphabet may increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 72 , 723–737 (2023).
Susko, E. & Roger, A. J. On reduced amino acid alphabets for phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 24 , 2139–2150 (2007).
Viklund, J., Ettema, T. J. G. & Andersson, S. G. E. Independent genome reduction and phylogenetic reclassification of the oceanic SAR11 clade. Mol. Biol. Evol. 29 , 599–615 (2012).
Download references
The authors thank B. Snel for helpful advice. This work was supported by the Dutch Research Council (VI.C.192.016 to T.J.G.E. and VI.Veni.212.099 to J.J.E.v.H.), the European Research Council (ERC Consolidator grant 817834 to T.J.G.E.), Volkswagen Foundation (‘Life’ grant 96725 to T.J.G.E.) and the Moore-Simons Project on the Origin of the Eukaryotic Cell (Simons Foundation 73592LPI to T.J.G.E.).
Authors and affiliations.
Laboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Julian Vosseberg, Jolien J. E. van Hooff, Stephan Köstlbacher, Kassiani Panagiotou & Thijs J. G. Ettema
Theoretical Biology and Bioinformatics, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
Daniel Tamarit
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
All authors contributed to the writing of this manuscript.
Correspondence to Thijs J. G. Ettema .
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information.
Nature thanks Toni Gabaldón and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Vosseberg, J., van Hooff, J.J.E., Köstlbacher, S. et al. The emerging view on the origin and early evolution of eukaryotic cells. Nature 633 , 295–305 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07677-6
Download citation
Received : 02 November 2023
Accepted : 05 June 2024
Published : 11 September 2024
Issue Date : 12 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07677-6
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Prokaryote cells lack a membrane-bound nucleus or organelles. Prokaryotic cells generally are smaller than eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells are more complex. Prokaryotic cells are unicellular, while eukaryotic cells may be multicellular. A prokaryotic cell has a single haploid (n) chromosome, while eukaryotes have multiple, paired, diploid ...
The presence of a nucleus is the core difference between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, which is even coded in the names thereof. In addition, unlike a eukaryotic cell, a prokaryotic one does not have chromosomes but, instead, contains a substitute called plasmids (Kelly and Callegari 4977). Unlike a chromosome, a plasmid does not have a ...
In prokaryotic cells, the true nucleus is absent, moreover, membrane-bound organelles are present only in eukaryotic cells. Another major difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells is that prokaryotic cells are exclusively unicellular, while the same does not apply to eukaryotic cells. Q4.
Eukaryotic cells have many chromosomes which undergo meiosis and mitosis during cell division, while most prokaryotic cells consist of just one circular chromosome. However, recent studies have ...
The primary difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells is that a nucleus and other membrane-bound organelles are only present in eukaryotic cells. Prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells make up prokaryotes and eukaryotes, respectively. Prokaryotes are always unicellular, while eukaryotes are often multi-celled organisms. Additionally ...
Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report: APA. Greenwood, Michael. (2023, July 19). Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic Cells: Similarities and Differences.
02/17/2011. Prokaryotic cell. A eukaryotic cell (left) has membrane-enclosed DNA, which forms a structure called the nucleus (located at center of the eukaryotic cell; note the purple DNA enclosed ...
Only eukaryotes have membrane-bound organelles and a nucleus. Prokaryotes divide via using binary fission, while eukaryotic cells divide via mitosis. Eukaryotes reproduce sexually through meiosis, which allows for genetic variance. Prokaryotic cells reproduce asexually, copying themselves.
The difference between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells has to do with the little stuff-doing parts of the cell, called organelles. Prokaryotic cells are simpler and lack the eukaryote's membrane-bound organelles and nucleus, which encapsulate the cell's DNA. Though more primitive than eukaryotes, prokaryotic bacteria are the most diverse and ...
Furthermore, organisms possessing prokaryotic cells are unicellular in nature. Moreover, a significant difference between prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells is that the latter are more complex. Furthermore, a prokaryotic cell contains only a single membrane and it surrounds the cell as an outer membrane. In contrast, eukaryotic cells have a ...
Components of Prokaryotic Cells. Cell Wall: Provides rigidity and support for the cell. Cell membrane: Thin layer of protein and lipids that surrounds the cytoplasm and regulate the flow of materials inside and outside the cells. Ribosomes: Tiny particles on the surface of the endoplasmic reticulum(RER). They help in protein synthesis. Glycocalyx: This layer functions as a receptor, aids the ...
The general characteristics of prokaryotic cells are listed below: In general, Prokaryotes range in size from 0.1 to 5.0 µm and are considerably smaller than eukaryotic cells. The shape of Prokaryotes ranges from cocci, bacilli, spirilla, and vibrio. However, prokaryotic cells with modifications of these shapes are also found in nature.
This essay is about comparing and contrasting eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. It highlights the structural and functional differences, such as eukaryotic cells having a defined nucleus and membrane-bound organelles, while prokaryotic cells lack these features and have a simpler organization.
The simplest cells such as bacteria are known as Prokaryotic cells, and human cells are known as Eukaryotic cells. The main difference between each of these cells is that a eukaryotic cell has a nucleus and a membrane bound section in which the cell holds the main DNA which are building blocks of life. Prokaryotic cells do not have a nucleus.
The cells of eukaryotes, however, do contain true nuclei. Eukaryotes arose around 1.2 thousand million years ago, and they evolved from prokaryotes which began around 3.5 thousand million years ago. Although the location of the DNA in the cells is the major difference between the cell types, there are many more differences, which are explored ...
This essay will focus on the differences between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. To start with, the first eukaryotic and prokaryotic cell appeared at different time mainly because to their requirements for survive. At first the condition of the Earth was not suitable for any organism, for example lack of organic molecules.
The Prokaryotic cells divide by binary fission, while the Eukaryotic cells divide by either mitosis, in somatic cell to produce identical copies, or meiosis, to produce sex cell with half the chromosomes of other cells in the body. The main difference between binary fission and mitosis is that binary fission occurs faster as prokaryotic cells ...
Conclusion. Prokaryotic cells transport their metabolites through the cytoplasm, but eukaryotic cells consist of different kinds of. vesicles to transport different metabolites. Protein synthesis ...
We hope you enjoyed this video! If you have any questions please ask in the comments.⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇︎⬇ ...
In Eukaryotic cells there is also a distinct nuclear membrane. Prokaryotic cells are smaller than Eukaryotic cells, according to "Pharmaceutical Microbiology" the majority of bacteria fall within the general dimensions of 0.75 to 4mm compared to the size of common eukaryotic cells which can be up to 40 times larger than Prokaryotic cells and ...
In a process referred to as eukaryogenesis, the eukaryotic cell is believed to have evolved between approximately 1.8 and 2.7 billion years ago from its archaeal ancestors, with a symbiosis with a ...
Difference between Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Cells #biology #shorts | Dr. Himanshu Sirउत्कर्ष की 22वीं वर्षगाँठ के अवसर पर आपको ...
Answer to difference between eukaroytic and prokaryotic cells. Your solution's ready to go! Enhanced with AI, our expert help has broken down your problem into an easy-to-learn solution you can count on.
Eukaryotic cell vs Prokaryotic 6 Cell #cellbiology #class #biology #viral #colleg. Acharuli - Rosie_SD & Kazus. Difference Between Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Cells. Explore the distinctions between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, with a focus on the nucleus and DNA location. Learn about the fundamental variances in cell biology. #cellbiology ...