Talk:Archaea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated B-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Natsci.

Some of Archea also live in less extreme environments. Could somebody check it.

indicate that, although they can be extremophiles, they aren't necessarily always extremophiles. I've made what I hope is an appropriate change to the wording.

Also what is meant by "are very old"? Compared to what? Is the intended sense of this that their phylogenetic divergence is ancient?

--dja

There's nothing that would suggest that they are any older than Bacteria. They're of course much older than Eucaryota, but Bacterias are also. (Unless I missed some recent findings about Archea)

::All organisms are equally "old" . You mean the time of divergence between the groups. DGG 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the link to ARNr just some remnant rubbish, or does such a thing exist? charlieF 19:18 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

ARNr is a valid term (try a Google search). It means "ARN ribosome"; however, I have no idea, what it is, but somebody who knows may add this article one day. -- Cordyph 19:23 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
ARNr is the french version of rRNA or ribosomal RNA. WormRunner 07:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Someone changed a paragraph to read:

Althoughnlkn the identity of the Archaea is generally accepted, other biologists have questioned Woese's hypotheses about them. Subsequent studies have confirmed that while they are similar in numerous structural and metabolic features to Bacteria, the Archaeal versions of the two most central processes of molecular biology, transcription and translation, are extremely similar to the eukaryotic versions. While trees of some genes suggest that the Archaea are either closely related or ancestral to the eukaryotes, others do not. The discovery of apparently Archaeal-derived genes in bacteria such as Thermotoga also makes the relationship between eukaryotes and Archaea difficult to determine. The key question that all cell evolution theories must address is why Eukaryotes and Archaea share a similar information processing system to the exclusion of the Bacteria even though most eukaryotic genes are not particularly close to their Archaeal versions.

Perhaps some of the material from this should be kept, but as it stands I don't think it makes sense. Most notably, differences between archaeans and eukaryotes have always been well-known, but by themselves don't imply that they didn't diverge from a common ancestor. As such, this isn't a "key question," just something that strongly supports the notion that they are close relatives, which most biologists seem to accept.

In light of this, I wonder if saying that their transcription and translation are extremely similar really means that, or just means that they share common traits, making them extremely similar compared to what you would expect assuming they aren't related. I suspect the latter, since I know archaean ribosomes are still essentially prokaryotic in form. However, I don't really know, and it would be nice if someone more familiar with these things could confirm. For in-depth material like this, providing references would be very helpful.

This version removed the possibility that archaeans and eukaryotes arose from within eubacteria. This isn't that common an idea among molecular biologists, since it contradicts rRNA trees, but these are now known to misplace highly divergent groups and there are some other genes that support the notion. At the very least it's important to mention, since it's at the basis of most criticisms of the three-domain system.

Does anyone else have any more information about these things, or suggestions of how to rework the article, keeping it balanced between the different evolutionary hypotheses? Josh 00:46, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


This has nothing to do with balance -- the entire *reason* Archaea are interesting is that their information processing systems are Eukaryotic like. Everybody agrees on this, even arch-rivals like Carl Woese and Jim Lake , who disagree on nearly everything. There are basically two ways to explain this -- either Archaea and Eukaryotes are specifically related (depending on rooting, Archaea may be ancestral), as suggested by rRNA and other (mostly other information-system related genes) or that the nucleus of Eukaryotes was derived from a member of the Archaea, and the cytoplasm came from somewhere else (see Jim Lake's recent "Ring of Life" paper for a recent version of this theory).

Carl's "progenote theory", dealing with events near the origin of life, while an interesting theory, is not particularly relevant or supported or refuted by any of this, making your comments relating to it rather confusing -- certainly the progenote, if indeed one existed, wasn't around when eukaryotes arose (quite a recent development).

In terms of transcription, rather than using the "sigma-factor" system discovered in E.coli and once assumed to be the model of "prokaryotic" transcription, Archaea have TATA-binding proteins and TFIIB just like Eukaryotes. Similarly, Archaea have have a translation system using the eukaryotic method initiation and elongation factors -- and is even poisoned by diptheria toxin, which otherwise only affects eukaryotic translation.

The reason why I edited the article -- while the debate rages on about the relation between Archaea and other organisms, unless you stress these key differences betwen Archaea and Bacteria, it isn't at all clear why people study them -- you make it sound as if they are just ordinary bacteria with odd cell walls -- it would be like writing an article about Orlando, Florida and not mentioning Disneyworld!

As for references, while there are literally hundreds on papers on Archaeal transcription and translation, here a a couple of recent ones (note that the first even shows that Archaea have nucleosomes, a further similarity with Eukaryotes, the second, on eukaryotic translation, also has good overviews of Archaeal and Bacterial translation as well):

Xie Y, Reeve JN. Transcription by an archaeal RNA polymerase is slowed but not blocked by an archaeal nucleosome. J. Bacteriol. 186:3492-8 (2004)

Kapp LD and Lorsch JR. The molecular mechanics of eukaryotic translation. Annu Rev Biochem. 73:657-704 (2004)

--- Dr. Jonathan H Badger, The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), Rockville, MD

The biggest problem I have with either version of the paragraph is the opening sentence. It can be taken to imply that the existence of this distinct group of prokaryotes is still being debated. Taken with the orignial version of the paragraph, the effect is even stronger. I also think it caused Badger's rewrite to sound more defensive than necessary.
I would propose something like, Although the identity of the Archaea has been well established, the exact configuration of their evolutionary tree is still undetermined. or Subsequent studies have confirmed the status of Archaea as a findamental division of cellular life, yet at the same time raised intriguing questions about their relationship to the other groups, bacteria and eukaryotes.
In general, I like Dr. Badger's version of the paragraph a little better, but there is something about his last sentence that doesn't sound quite right to me. I agree with the sentiment, but it seems like too much of a challenge to be in an encyclopedia. I would suggest The question remains, why ... or Evolutionary theorist are (currently) trying to determine why ....
Jmeppley 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The implication is meant to be there. The idea that the bacteria, archaeans, and eukaryotes are fundamental divisions of life is based mainly on Woese's tree and although widely accepted, several notable biologists have disputed it since. I think we need to make it plain the idea isn't universal because most people tend to assume the matter is settled.

Anyways, Jonathan, thank you for the references and sorry for the wholesale revert. I've reworked the article as well as I can to try and get both points across. Please feel free to change it if there's still any problems. Josh 04:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be a tendency on these pages to consider methanogens as extremophilic. Is this really how they're usually described? There's nothing extreme about digestive tracts, they're home to countless typical bacteria like E. coli and protozoa, which are never described in this way. Josh 21:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Josh, I like the new rewrite. As for methanogens being extremophilic, it depends on the species -- while the most famous methanogen, Methanococcus jannaschii, is an extremophile living down in the thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean at 85C and extreme pressure, other species, such as Methanococcus maripaludis live at normal temperatures like 30C and at atmospheric pressure. Archaea are more common that people originally realized, and the discovery of extremely thermophilic bacteria like Thermotoga has shown that not only Archaea can live at high temperatures.Jonathan Badger

In the sentence "For instance the halobacteria can use light to produce ATP, although none conduct photosynthesis in the usual sense.", does the word "none" refer to halobacteria alone or all archaea? It seeems wrong to give the impression that archaea didn't/don't do photosynthesis (I have seen many references to photosynthetic archaea, for example [1]). JDG 13:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It refers to all Archaea. The references will be about halobacteria (including Natronobacterium), which do collect energy from light, but don't have an electron transport chain. I'll try and make the distinction a little clearer in the article. Josh

Contents

[edit] opening paragraph

I hacked up the opening paragraph because I felt it didn't adequately summarize what archaea are. The original just discussed the taxonomic difficulties of the three domain system. I tried to insert some descriptive stuff (single celled, no nucleus, ...) I'm still not entirely happy with how it fits together, though. I'm trying to balance a succinct description with acknowledgement of the uncertainty. The intro is not the place to go into the details, but it should touch on the basics. Help me out, please. Jmeppley 23:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Tree of Life Picture

Please, replace terms like Plants and Animals in the Tree of Life picture with proper latin words. I didn't do this because I do not consider myself competent in the subject, but I am sure latin words are required here.

"Latin words"? I personally don't see the difference between having "Animals" and "Animalia", etc... Although I must agree that "tree of life" should be changed into "phylogenic tree".

The form used in Wikipedia seems to be "phylogenetic tree." I will add a redirect. DGG 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it spelled "Eukaryota"? Why is there a "c" instead of a "k" in the domain name? Werothegreat 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

--

There are some mistakes in the Tree of Life given here. The microsporidia have been known for a number of years to be a highly evolved branch of the fungi. The basal position of some of the other eukaryotic organisms is also being debated. As far as I know the archeal and bacterial trees are currently considered to be correct.

It is not certain that prokaryotic tree is correct. There is strong evidence that basalmost branches are artefacts (long-branch attraction). For example the position of Aquifex may by such an artefact. It is possible this bacterium is closely related to proteobacteria. See e.g. http://www.bacterialphylogeny.com/ . And if Aquifex is wrong, the rest of the tree may be wrong, too (exactly as it was with microsporidia). A casual visitor, 84.10.114.122 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous biologists section necessary?

I doubt the famous biologists section is necessary. The individual contributions can be adequately highlighted in the remaining text. Furthermore, Woese and Stetter are already extensively linked in the rest of the article.

Agreed, and Woese is cited many many times in all the possibly relevant articles. DGG 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References to transcription and translation.

We can not and should not assume that Archaeal transcription and translation are extremely similar to the eukaryotic counterparts. I've changed the wording a bit to reflect this although the thrust seems to be on eukaryotic similarities. One day, when I get some time, I'll change this to reflect the similiarities with prokaryotic systems as both should be mentioned. Here is a reference for all interested.

Geiduschek EP, Ouhammouch M. Archaeal transcription and its regulators. Mol Microbiol. 2005 Jun;56(6):1397-407. (Review)

Abstract: "The relatively complex archaeal RNA polymerases are constructed along eukaryotic lines, and require two initiation factors for promoter recognition and specific transcription that are homologues of the RNA polymerase II TATA-binding protein and TFIIB. Many archaea also produce histones. In contrast, the transcriptional regulators encoded by archaeal genomes are primarily of bacterial rather than eukaryotic type. It is this combination of elements commonly regarded as separate and mutually exclusive that promises unifying insights into basic transcription mechanisms across all three domains of life."

and slightly dated but essentially valid:

Bell SD, Jackson SP. Transcription and translation in Archaea: a mosaic of eukaryal and bacterial features. Trends Microbiol. 1998 Jun;6(6):222-8. (Review).

Also I've changed the text to reflect that tRNA introns are present in some tRNA genes, and by no means all or even in all species.

In the absence of any pathogenic Archaea aruging that they are stripped down versions of eukaryotic systems is useful in getting NIH money, but there are some remarkable similiarities with bacterial counterparts as well. --Antorjal 15:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counts

Do w need an organized way of keeping counts of, e.g, species sequences up to date. I updated and added the date as a hint to check regularlyDGG 04:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cell Picture

Both Bacteria and Eukaryota have a picutre describing the general cell structure of their domain. If anyone could get a picture of archaean cell structure, that would be awesome.Werothegreat 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The opening paragraph says that archaea are eukaryotic, yet the eukaryote article says that archaea are not. Is it meant to say prokaryotic? Or am I missing something? --Awesome 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archaea: new phylum

New phylum of virus-sized archea discovered in a mine. [2] Brian Pearson 00:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archaea

Are archaea aoutrophic or heterotrophic? Is locomotion present or absent? --72.91.155.248 03:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)SampleUser

[edit] Outline

It might be good to have the same sections in the Archaea article as the bacteria article.

  1. History of the study of archaea
  2. Origin and early evolution
  3. Morphology
  4. Cellular structure - Intracellular structures and Extracellular structures
  5. Metabolism
  6. Growth and reproduction
  7. Genetics
  8. Movement
  9. Classification and identification
  10. Interactions with other organisms - Mutualists and Pathogens
  11. Significance in technology and industry
  12. See also
  13. References
  14. Further reading
  15. External links

TimVickers 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/c/Talk%7EArchaea_2a9f.html"