How did endosymbiosis lead to the formation of eukaryotic organelles?

Question

Could someone please explain in detail how endosymbiosis led to the formation of eukaryotic organelles. Also why is a standard cladogram inadequate to illustrate the ancestry of a species that arises from endosymbiosis? Thank You Very Much.

Answer 1

The endosymbiotic theory concerns the origins of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells. According to this theory, these organelles originated as separate prokaryotic organisms which were taken inside the cell as endosymbionts. Mitochondria developed from proteobacteria (in particular, Rickettsiales or close relatives) and chloroplasts from cyanobacteria.

Answer 2

Endosymbiosis is the hypothesis that several intracellular organelles are the remnants of once free-living bacteria which were engulfed by eukaryotic cells. These bacteria, the hypothesis follows, survived and established a symbiotic relationship inside the cell.
The "in-detail" parts are rather unknown, but probably would have involved the loss of some genes, especially redundant ones. The evidence that leans toward this hypothesis lies in the study of mitochondria in animal cells and chloroplasts of plants. They both contain their own ribosomes, meaning they once had the capability to express genes on their own, and these ribosomes are more similar to bacterial ribosomes than to regular eukaryotic ribosomes. They both also construct their own inner membranes, and have the ability to divide independent of the cell in which they reside.


The reason a cladogram isn't helpful in the full ancestral lineage is that one would have to incorporate the fact that a prokaryotic intermediate would separate two eukaryotic clades.

In this example it should be noted that the bacteria that contributed to mitochondria and chloroplasts are likely very different bacteria.

Answer 3

By simple proximity, or interchange of cytosol particles (remember, that part of the interchange happened eons ago), and some chloroplasts passed from pro to eukariotyc cells....in the same manner that some other infectious particles were shared by both,,,,,,
A acheme of evolution, is inoperable, because we dont have the link between plants and protozoa since the evolution started.....

Answer 4

ADAM ZARETSKY


*Wherein virulent parasitism begets complete integration inside the host cell, becoming specific, hereditary and obligate, not digested, not defecated intact and not mutualistic*.


Exploring the concepts of endosymbiosis and how this process leads to the formation of organelles and eventually human organs leads to neuronal distrust. Follow the evolutionary history of ancient, free living spirochetes until it becomes clear how the neurons that compose and articulate human consciousness may trace their lineage back to microbial parasitic origins. This evolutionary path is unrewardingly codified by the following taxonomic relations: bacterial parasite, xenosomic cell whip, intranuclear microtubule system and finally neurons ourselves. Endosymbiosis is more insidious than simple utilization and maintenance of a foreign body by the host cell. Conclusions are constant within the reevaluations inherent to premitotic nuclear infection and the subversion of the host cell/human CNS by liquid time share spirochetes capable of duplicity. Beware resistance as the loss of mind-trust congeals with reticent validity.


"If spirochetes are truly ancestral to brain cells or neurons, then the concepts and signals of thought are based on chemical and physical abilities already latent in the bacteria."[1]


FREE RANGE SPIROCHETES >> SPIROCHETES AS MOTILITY


Four years less than two billion years ago in the microbial oceans, a time when spirochetes were spirochetes and cells were without cilia, flagellum or any type of undulapodia, the spirochetes were the most motile of all the microbes. It should come as no surprise that they drilled, jogged and muddied their way through cell membranes, at times through nuclei, the vestiges of which now double as supposed cellular management centers. Spirochetes (i.e.. syphilitic) can corkscrew their way through human skin in a matter of minutes. Yet, spirochetes do more than burrow blindly through organic matter. They are well groomed and known for their parasitic, lamprey-like behaviors. Parasite sets up nuclear puppet government, 3.5 million years BC. Hooking on to an especially scrumptious cell, the spirochete is almost identical to a cell whip. Some scoff at the distinction.


"To us the evidence strongly suggests that ancient pacts were made between the early bacterial confederacies that became cells with nuclei and spirochetes or spirochete-like bacteria. Spirochetes hovered both inside and outside their nonspirochete neighbors and in the end they provided movement for those who hadn't even requested it."[2]


ENDOSYMBIONT >> ORGANELLE


(9+2) patterns of tubulin protein strands lend themselves to VISIONS of radial tires. Remain skeptical of plan to reduce flagellum to motility schema. Before symbionts (or xenosomes) are utilized inside the nucleus, independent, foreign organisms are converted into the genetically interdependent organelles that make mitosis possible. Cavalier-Smith & Lee's concessions reveals Symbiont-Organelle conversion as a genetic pole position. The major difference between endosymbionts and organelles is the fact that organelles receive protein strands directly from the nucleus whereas endosymbionts synthesize all their proteins from their own DNA. "The conversion of a symbiont into an organelle, therefore, depends on the transfer of some or all symbiont genes into the nucleus of the host and not merely the loss of symbiont genes."[3] Although mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA and divide at their own pace they do receive transcribed and translated orders from the nucleus. Cilia and flagellum reproduce with the lay-organelles yet this is no simple commensurate feast. They are transferring parasitical genes into the nucleus of the host. During mitosis, all whip tails detwine and advance upon the center with rancid hunger. Mitosis is a virulent information usurpation.


FLAGELLATE >> INTRANUCLEAR MICRO TUBULE SYSTEM


"No mammal cell can retain undulipodia while it divides by mitosis. It is as if the cell must use it's ancient spirochetal symbionts for one thing or another, but not both."[4]


Memorize this other, more grueling, validity during close examination of the behavior of undulipodial info-feeding: *mitosis is a type of buffet*. During mitosis, permanent records of spirochetal attack trajectories reveal stealthy/swarthy genes sprinkled throughout a few (9+2) homologues tracing a path towards nucleotic war prizes. "Traces of RNA have been found inside the cavity of kinetisomes"[5] and "RNA has been found in centrioles and DNA is expected"[6] Undulipodia still have independent division centers with their own genetic material in the basal bodies (kinetisomes) and the centrioles. *Do not separate!* these two organelles, they are interchangeable. Identical cross sections reveal double team archaic offense strategies. The undulipodia rotors into the nucleus utilizing the tubulin proteins as spindle fibers {geneteeth}. Vengeant transcriptors, anti-oxygen mandibles, *the nuclei are storage yolks raised by snakes*. Chromosomal centromeres and spindle apparati are ingrained with (9+2) homologue scavenging premises. Spindle fibers are not utilized. If you are reading this, you will have been utilized by spindle fibers, now. This rule applies to the varied human cells that have utilized undulipodia: sperm tails, cilia in lungs, cilia in oviducts, rod and cone cells in human eyes and lower GI tract flagella. Indeed, most orifices, themselves, are unhealed wounds representative of Doctor Octopus spindle fibers penetrating the bloated nucleus in order to introduce sense and self to an otherwise naive orificeless glut.


BEHAVIOR >> MODIFICATION OF HOST DURING MITOSIS


Now, Now, right now, a parasite is entering the nucleus of a Lower Eukaryote, perhaps for reproduction, perhaps to feast on intranuclear metabolites, perhaps with long term, lampreyic business strategies? The head, neck and teeth of the spirochete corresponds to the centromere, basal body and spindle fibers, respectively, during mitosis. Ancient battles are to have been the routine foundations of reproduction. Mitosis is to have been an archeological revelation. You will find the origin of consciousness has virulently clawed onto the pre-spirotic chromosomes, injecting mysterious genetic material into pre-spirotic nuclear DNA. Vengeant centromeres reproduce by separating with large chromatidic chunks while trying to depermutate the nucleus towards a utilizable unintelligibility.


As history backs up with a bindle of DNA, today's science envisions a desperate over the shoulder shout to the centrioles, "Run for it! Run for it!" But it is too late. Caught with over extended grasp, the

spread eagle interface of the cellular collective relegates this incessant free marketer to a reeducation camp for the politically insane. Grappling tubules mob the genetic storehouses in a fossilized version of mitotal ravagery. Yolk usurpation finalized the deal with chromatidal centromere. Doctor octopus is a nine-two homologue forging heavy dominance of the cytocosm over eons of time. Disintegration of the (former nucleus) xenosome into the cell's system has been developed by xenophobic personnel in aseptic containment systems. Blur recognition of any distinction between "normal" autogenously derived organelles of the cytoplasm and exogenously derived xenosomic constituents of the same cell.


The nucleus ceases to be perceived as the center of the "nucleated" cell. This sadly assumptive version can be compared to the heliocentrist visions of yesteryear. The economy of utilization, literally, who is dogging who, remains a microscopic question of macroscopic proportions. An important juncture for further study might focus on sperm tails during conception. The sperm tail detaches from a fresh zygotic insemination, wiggling off to melt in the acidic fallopian environs. Some purport this is a spirochete whose functionality has been "terminated." Who is terminating who? There are many proofs and possible evolutionary paths that substantiate an all-symbiont point of view defining life history. X/Y gametes have been perversely scrambled by spirochetal turpitude {asexual coercion of gender}. Other evolutionary processions of a non-nucleocentric mode unfold as the entire intranuclear microtubule system begins to gleam with (9+2) tubulin structured homologues. Each zygote may contain fresh *colonial transcripts from the infectious head* of what is codified as a tail. Quietude is mystery devolved by complacent collectivity.


1: EXCRETER / EJACULATE / EXCESS ENERGY STATION / MATURE LOVE
SUNGLASSES / SPIROSHADE


2: TOOL FOR MEANS OF ENERGY CONVERSION POSSESSION / CULTURE OF NARCCISM
SUNGLASS PRODUCTION MACHINERY AND RESOURCES


3: ORIFICE OF EXCRETA / PENETRATION / INTERFACE / ORIFICE OF CONTUMSIUM
A EYES B / VISUAL LOCUS / CONCENTRATION POINT / FOCUS


4: EXCRETIA


A: PERCENTAGE OF LIGHT REFLECTED without body odor BY SUNGLASSES
B: NARCISSISM / ONE HOST ADORNMENT / HOSTILITY TOWARDS BEING KNOWN /
RAPED BY ANOTHER'S VISUAL LOCUS--WHILE THIS REMAINS, IT RUNS
INTERDETERMINANTLY AS ALSO AN OBJECT OF SEDUCTION (SEE OPPOSITE)
C: LOIN-FORAGING / ORGONE ENERGY CAT MEWS
D: LOS ALAMOS BOMB BLAST FOOTAGE
5: RECEIVER
RECOIL MIRROR / VISUAL LOCUS


1: EXCRETER / EJACULATE / EXCESS ENERGY STATION


A: SOFTWARE
2: TOOL FOR MEANS OF ENERGY specific CONVERSION defecated intact--LIBIDO, obligate--LUNAR CYCLE, hereditary--TELEVISION


A: HARDWARE: EGG OF RUIN, LUST AND EVOLUTION, REJECTED PROPOSITION FOR POSSIBLE FERTILIZATION / CONCEPTION (SEE B) EXPULSION OF THE UTERINE WALL OF HOPE NATIONAL SECURITY
B: HARDWARE
WHO / RE / PRODUCTIVE INSTINCT
C: SOFTWARE
FOR NEXT
SPERM, EGG,
ORGANS--UTERUS (WOMAN)
DNA INFESTED ZYGOTE
HUMAN cave

4: EXCRETA


A: BLOOD
B: BABIES
C: ELEMENTs (ESP. FIRE)
TELEVISION
SEXUAL STIMULUS
HARDWARE
NONE
SOFTWARE
PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE

3: ORIFICE / INTERFACE
A COMFORTABLE LIFE


5: RECEIVER
VARIOUS==tear ducts by the ounce
CONVERSION OF EXCRETA BACK INTO ENERGY FOR FURTHER EXCREMENT PRODUCTION
NASUM


1: EXCRETER / EJACULATE / EXCESS ENERGY RESERVE AND PROVOCATION SALIVATIONSTATION / PRODUCER
HUMANS AND A LOT OF ANIMALS COMPUTER NETWORK HAVING DEFINE LIFE HISTORY


2: TOOL FOR MEANS OF ENERGY CONVERSION / MODE OF PRODUCTION OR SAVED ENERGY / CAPITAL
SNOT GLAND FOR NOW. DESERTING moist AND CODIENe SODDENED TRICKS. WE ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW.
*RATIONALIZED EXCUSE FOR EXCRETRIA?*


3: ORIFICE / INTERFACE / MARKETPLACE
NOSE / TRANSMITTER OF WAVE FUNCTIONS / MOP FOR SHOTGUNS


4: EXCRETORY / PRODUCT
MUCUS / BOOGERS / SNOT / BOGIES


5: RECEIVER / PENETRANT / PURCHASER
UNDERNEATH DESKS AND TABLE TOPS / NOD ELEMENT / LUMBERING TRUNCHEON
OAF


STAGE TWO


6: BACKLASH
RELATIVE REVERSAL EXCRETORIAL. SOME SIMULTANEOUS SOME STAGED
HOME OF AXON HOMOLOGUES REVEALED THROUGH SNEEZE RESEARCH
not digested and not mutualistic


7: EXCHANGE / PAYMENT FOR PRODUCT
THE FINGER PENETRATES AND RETREATS LEAVING AIR AS A RETRIBUTION. THE BOOKIE PICKING FINGER IS A PIRATE.


8: 3: ORIFICE / INTERFACE / MARKETPLACE
THE HOLE THAT EXCRETES THE FINGER NAIL / A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT
EXCRETE
NERVOUS NAIL


9: TOOL FOR MEANS OF ENERGY CONVERSION / MODE OF PRODUCTION OR SAVED ENERGY / CAPITAL
FINGER NAIL MAKING GLAND / NODES
PRODUCERS OF TELEVISION


10: RE-EXCRETER / RE-EJACULATE / EXCESS ENERGY REVERB AND RETRIBUTION STATION / PRODUCER

ANTI-BED WETTER


1: EXCRETER / EJACULATE / EXCESS ENERGY RESERVE AND PROVOCATION
STATION / PRODUCER
FELCH
FOUNTAIN PEN
FILM PRODUCER / MONEY / SOCIAL RECOGNITION
ATOM BOMB


2: TOOL FOR MEANS OF ENERGY CONVERSION / MODE OF PRODUCTION OR SAVED ENERGY / CAPITAL
TESTICLES, PENIS, ANUS OF WELL FED PERSON
PRESSURE ON TIP OF PEN WITH HAND
FILM, EDITOR AND SPLICING MACHINE
EINSTEIN AND A BIG SPLICING BUDGET


3: ORIFICE / INTERFACE / MARKETPLACE
ANUS
PEN TIP
MOVIE THEATER / CAMERA / SCREEN, TV
ENOLA GAY BELLIES


4: EXCRETIA / PRODUCT
A MIXTURE OF *** AND ****, THE UNNAMABLE
INK
FILMS
LIGHT, ENERGY, FORCE, ISOTOPES, A WORLD OF BEAUTY


5: RECEIVER / PENETRANT / PURCHASER
IT WILL BE CONSUMED BY A WILLING OR UNWILLING
PERUSER OF FINE FELCH
PAPER
AUDIENCE / EYES


ANYONE AND ANYTHING IN THE VICINITY WILL BE PENETRATED.


Nerve cell formation is the third stage of host utilization. Before gray matter, microtubular organisms had been using the host under the structural auspices of "aid" in motility (cilia or flagellum) or "aid" in cell division. *Now, commensurate trust will succumb to

microbial vice*. The seat of the intellect reveals a nest of pathogenic minstrels. Orifices...these holes...these interfaces...they are axon and neuron caves... Brain extensions...home to specialized militias...(9+2) trolls under the sensual bridge of interface. Human sense data, your daily bread, is under the thumb of mature neurons. Is it to late to find out why our brain cells have ceased dividing?


"After maturity, brain cells never divide, nor do they move about. Yet we know mammal brain cells--the richest source of tubulin protein anywhere--do not waste their rich microtubular heritage. Rather, the main function of mature brain cells, once reproduced or deployed, is to send signals and receive them, as if the micro tubule once used for cell whip and chromosomal movement had been usurped for the function of thought."[7]


Neurotubules of the brain are immobilized and they do not reproduce. Instead, they serve the special and magical functions of thought/messages. Or, it will be have said, "higher" thought has been usurped by the spirochetes, serves the spirochetes, is the spirochetes ourselves. Spirochetes and their evolutionary homologues seem to be wondrously adapted to the role of speedy transfer of ever complicated types of information messages. Within the endosymbiotic literature, these distant relatives of parasitic attackers are generally thought to have been simply co-opted or adopted by what, very humanistically (or eukaryoticistically), is presumed to be a higher life form (ie the nucleated cell). The general terrain of communist influenced, endosymbiotic thought goes something like this:


"It may be conjectured that it is in cases of heavy dominance by the cytocosm over eons of time that an integration of the (former) xenosome into the cell's system has been developed, blurring recognition, today, of any distinction between "normal" autogenously derived organelles of the cytoplasm and exogenously derived xenosomic constituents of the same cell."[8]


NUCLEAR TAKEOVER?


*Who's* dominion has succumbed to which messages? Must we succumb to undocumented parasites who can initiate specific host behavior "without noticeable damage to the muscular or nervous tissues of their host."[9] Are we suicidal ants and upside down fowl? Is it possible that the development of the mammalian brain is the result of a pathogenic disease that is composed of solely behavioral symptoms? This would put the entire human project, human threats to the atmosphere in particular, under the scrutiny of a near conspiratorial (con-spiro-torial?) eye. The very fact that Eucaryotes hold the earth's oxygen layer in disdain, should provide a clarity of motive for what would otherwise be a motiveless crime, mentality. Remember Now for Bondage Economy of Reason Later, "Infections of nuclei may lead to genetic 'control' of the host by the xenosome, rather than vice versa."[10]


Wake up with next refusal. Mitosis would have to be living historical fossilization of the spirochetal acquisition of the Eukaryotic nucleus. Submission to heavy dominance by the Xenosomic Insurgent has introduced recognition by sitcom. The differentiations are mostly lacking euphemism. Foreign agents are expected to be digested or defecated intact. Endonuclear infections are codified as invasions or colonizations. The mutualist line between virulent parasitism and complete integration inside the host cell, specific, hereditary and obligate, is drawn in the sand. Are we to merely assume bureaucratic "maintenance" of sybionts by the nucleus? "Few scientists are aware of the acquisition and migration of foreign nuclei and the occurrence of *nuclear parasitism* as an evolutionary phenomenon"[11] These paranoia weaving minstrels of spirotic turpitude flange the best of us into a hearty and incestuous chasmcosm. A close analysis of brain structure reveals the proximity of worm-like invaders. No grand commission can stop the cataclysm that we embody in biorepetitious contortion. The apparently "diabolical" behaviorial ecology of consciousness leaves hominid strategy subject to the spirochetal/eye precepts, physiologically inimitable, incestuous and ulterior in motivation.


NOTES


1. Lynn Margulis, _Microcosmos_, (NY: Summit books 1986), 150.


2. Ibid, 140.


3. T. Cavalier-Smith & John J. Lee, J. Protozool, "Protozoa as hosts for Endosymbioses and the Conversion of Symbionts to Organelles," (journal ???) Vol. 32, No. 3, 1985, 378.


4. Margulis, _Microcosmos_, 146.


5. Lynn Margulis, "Early Life," _Science Books International_, (Boston: MA 1982), 100.


6. Lynn Margulis, "Origin of Eukaryotic Cells," (London: Yale university Press, 1970), 270.


7. Margulis, _Microcosmos_, 150.


8. J. O. Corliss, J. Protozool., "Concept, Definition, Prevalence and Host-Interactions of Xenosomes," (journal ???) Vol. 32, No. 3, 1985, 376.


9. Janice Moore, "Parasites that Control the Behavior of their Hosts," _Scientific American_, Spring 1982, 108.


10. J. O. Corliss, J. Protozool, "Concept, Definition, Prevalence and Host-Interactions of Xenosomes," 376.


11. Lynn Margulis, "Words as Battle Cries--Symbiogenesis and the New Field of Endocytobiology," _Bioscience_, Vol. 40, No. 9, October 1990, 673.




#2.)
Endogenous synthesis of peptidoglycan in eukaryotic cells; a novel concept involving its essential role in cell division, tumor formation and the biological clock
Journal Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences (CMLS)
Publisher Birkhäuser Basel
ISSN 1420-682X (Print) 1420-9071 (Online)
Issue Volume 48, Number 10 / October, 1992
Category Reviews
DOI 10.1007/BF01919139
Pages 921-931
Subject Collection Biomedical and Life Sciences
SpringerLink Date Sunday, July 31, 2005
Add to marked items
Add to shopping cart
Add to saved items
Request Permissions
Recommend this article



Reviews
Endogenous synthesis of peptidoglycan in eukaryotic cells; a novel concept involving its essential role in cell division, tumor formation and the biological clock
C. -A. H. Roten1, 2 and D. Karamata1

(1) Institut de génétique et de biologie microbiennes, Rue César-Roux 19, CH-1005 Lausanne, (Switzerland)
(2) Present address: the Boston Biomedical Research Institute, 20, Staniford Street, Boston, Massachusetts, USA


Abstract Degradation products of peptidoglycan, the universal bacterial cell wall constituent, were previously found in animal tissues and urine. Reassessment and quantitative analysis of available data lead to an original concept, i.e. that eukaryotic cells synthesize peptidoglycan. We present a model in which this endogenously synthesized peptidoglycan is essential for the processes of eukaryotic cell division and sleep induction in animals. Genes for peptidoglycan metabolism, like those for lysine biosynthesis in plants, are probably inherited from endosymbiotic bacteria, the ancestors of mitochondria and chloroplasts. Corollaries of this concept, i.e. roles for peptidoglycan metabolism in tumor formation and in the biological clock, are supported by abundant evidence. We propose that many interactions between bacteria and eukaryotes are conditioned by their common genetic heritage.
Key words Biological clock - cell division cycle - diaminopimelate - evolution - FSu - lysine - muramate - muramyl dipeptide - peptidoglycan - sleep muropeptide - tumor