Ah, OK; that makes more sense. It's not going to happen, there's too many differences between them. I doubt even that inserting a complete eukaryotic nucleus into a bacterium would be viable.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ah, OK; that makes more sense. It's not going to happen, there's too many differences between them. I doubt even that inserting a complete eukaryotic nucleus into a bacterium would be viable.Sorry. That was a typo. It should have read, "Could the bacteria pick up enough DNA from the mammoth to become a eukaryote?"
Ah, OK; that makes more sense. It's not going to happen, there's too many differences between them. I doubt even that inserting a complete eukaryotic nucleus into a bacterium would be viable.
Well, the hypothesis is that eventually it happened somehow. Yes? If not, UCA is in danger.
Yes, it occurred eventually over millions and millions of years, not all at once from one giant HGT event.
And not necessarily all HGT events, yes?
The conditions just had to be right to promote whatever series of events were necessary. So what might the minimum number of events be?
I don't think that number is even calculable. The first problem you run into is the minimum number of events vs. the number of events that actually occurred.
I realize that in a non-deterministic system the chances of the actual number of events equaling the minimum is extremely small.
Further, isn't it possible that something useful may not emerge until the end of the event chain?
Has a series of DNA change events been observed with an emergent characteristic recorded at the end?
I was referring to contemporary bacteria and eukaryotic cells, which have had 3 billion-odd years of evolutionary divergence and increasing sophistication. Back in the day, organisms were very much simpler and more alike than they are now.Well, the hypothesis is that eventually it happened somehow. Yes? If not, UCA is in danger.
Sure. There are many known single nucleotide substitution mutations that produce a phenotypic change. Single mutations can confer antibiotic resistance in many bacterial species, just as an example off the top of my head.
OK ... maybe there's nowhere else for the conversation to go. We have an example of a single event (single nucleotide change) that causes a functional change in an organism. What would be the largest change (longest chain of events) you know of?
Whole genome duplications would probably fit the bill. This is where the genome doubles in a single generation. It is thought to have happened in the vertebrate lineage at least once. There are also polyploidy plants used in agriculture that have 2x or 4x the normal chromosome count (e.g. strawberries).
You're quick. You answered before I added a clarifying word. I meant to ask for the longest chain of observed events. And, again, is that 10, 1000, 1000000?
The closest would probably be Lenski's evolution experiments where he mapped genetic changes in E. coli over decades and tens of thousands of generations. According to their website, they are up to 50,000 generations.
Sorry, the answer is still no, however, as a bacteria would never get enough eukaryotic DNA to do that, would still be lacking the various organelles of a eukaryote such as mitochondria, and the amount of DNA that would even come close to doing something comparable to that would be far more liable to cause total cell failure of the bacterium and kill it.Sorry. That was a typo. It should have read, "Could the bacteria pick up enough DNA from the mammoth to become a eukaryote?"
@PsychoSarah FYI, I'm male.
OK, 5E4 generations over 30 years (The site says since Feb 1988, but I'm rounding). But what constitutes a "generation"? I assume it's not just one DNA change event, but multiple events amongst a population.
[edit] P.S. Your ability to recall these things continues to impress me.
Sorry, the answer is still no, however, as a bacteria would never get enough eukaryotic DNA to do that, would still be lacking the various organelles of a eukaryote such as mitochondria, and the amount of DNA that would even come close to doing something comparable to that would be far more liable to cause total cell failure of the bacterium and kill it.
Mitochondria have their own DNA. There was certainly evolutionary changes over time that improved the symbiotic relationship, but just having the mitochondria there wouldn't have required concurrent changes in DNA, unless the organism that swallowed it would have typically been able to digest the organism, and had a mutation that made its digestion less effective.Yes, I understand that the current hypothesis is that the mitochondria originated by absorbing another organism into the cell. However, in order to fix that, didn't it require a concurrent change in DNA?
Yes, I understand that the current hypothesis is that the mitochondria originated by absorbing another organism into the cell. However, in order to fix that, didn't it require a concurrent change in DNA?
They start each new 10 ml culture with 0.1 ml of the previous days culture. The bacteria need to divide 5 to 6 times (i.e. double their numbers 5 to 6 times) to reach 100% confluency with a 1% inoculum, so each day they start a new culture they produce 5 to 6 generations of bacteria. Every 75 days they freeze back a portion of the culture which represents 500 generations of accumulated mutations in many different lineages.
Mitochondria have their own DNA. There was certainly evolutionary changes over time that improved the symbiotic relationship, but just having the mitochondria there wouldn't have required concurrent changes in DNA, unless the organism that swallowed it would have typically been able to digest the organism, and had a mutation that made its digestion less effective.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?