Howe C J, Barbrook A C, Nisbet R E R, Lockhart P J, Larkum A W D
Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Aug 27;363(1504):2675-85. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0050.
It is generally accepted that plastids first arose by acquisition of photosynthetic prokaryotic endosymbionts by non-photosynthetic eukaryotic hosts. It is also accepted that photosynthetic eukaryotes were acquired on several occasions as endosymbionts by non-photosynthetic eukaryote hosts to form secondary plastids. In some lineages, secondary plastids were lost and new symbionts were acquired, to form tertiary plastids. Most recent work has been interpreted to indicate that primary plastids arose only once, referred to as a 'monophyletic' origin. We critically assess the evidence for this. We argue that the combination of Ockham's razor and poor taxon sampling will bias studies in favour of monophyly. We discuss possible concerns in phylogenetic reconstruction from sequence data. We argue that improved understanding of lineage-specific substitution processes is needed to assess the reliability of sequence-based trees. Improved understanding of the timing of the radiation of present-day cyanobacteria is also needed. We suggest that acquisition of plastids is better described as the result of a process rather than something occurring at a discrete time, and describe the 'shopping bag' model of plastid origin. We argue that dinoflagellates and other lineages provide evidence in support of this.
普遍认为,质体最初是由非光合真核宿主获取光合原核内共生体而产生的。也有人认为,光合真核生物曾多次被非光合真核宿主作为内共生体获取,从而形成次生质体。在一些谱系中,次生质体丢失,新的共生体被获取,进而形成三生质体。最近的研究被解释为表明初级质体仅起源一次,即所谓的“单系”起源。我们对这一观点的证据进行了批判性评估。我们认为,奥卡姆剃刀原理与有限的分类群抽样相结合,会使研究偏向于支持单系性。我们讨论了从序列数据进行系统发育重建时可能存在的问题。我们认为,需要更好地理解谱系特异性替代过程,以评估基于序列的树的可靠性。还需要更好地了解当今蓝细菌辐射的时间。我们认为,质体的获取更适合被描述为一个过程的结果,而不是在某个离散时间发生的事情,并描述了质体起源的“购物袋”模型。我们认为,甲藻和其他谱系为此提供了证据支持。