Posted on 01/21/2008 3:22:36 PM PST by blam
'Tree Of Life' Has Lost A Branch, According To Largest Genetic Comparison Of Higher Life Forms Ever
The four new super-groups of life are Plants (green and red algae, and plants; Opisthokonts (amoebas, fungi, and all animals—including humans; Excavates (free-living organisms and parasites; SAR (the new main group, an abbreviation of Stramenophiles, Alveolates, and Rhizaria, the names of some of its members). (Credit: Image courtesy of University of Oslo)
ScienceDaily (Jan. 22, 2008) — Norwegian and Swiss biologists have made a startling discovery about the relationship between organisms that most people have never heard of. The Tree of Life must be re-drawn, textbooks need to be changed, and the discovery may also have significant impact on the development of medicines.
The discovery by Norwegian and Swiss researchers has gained attention from biologists worldwide. The findings come from the largest ever genetic comparison of higher life forms on the planet. Of 5000 genes examined, researchers identified 123 common genes from all known groups of organisms; these common genes have been studied more closely.
Lost a Branch
“The results were pretty astounding. All non-bacterial life on Earth—called eukaryotic life— can now be divided into four main groups instead of the five groups that we have been working with up to now,” says Kamran Shalchian-Tabrizi, an associate professor from the University of Oslo’s Department of Biology who has also worked with the Department of Zoology and Animal Biology and the Department of Genetic Medicine and Development, at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.
The Tree of Life (see illustration) has, through the discovery that the two formerly separated branches share a similar evolutionary history, lost one of its branches, and this will both improve and simplify quite a bit of scientific work in the future.
Important Discovery
“Kinship says a lot about shared traits. Our findings can be important in many fields, such as in the study of the development of life and in the manufacture of new medicines” says Shalchian-Tabrizi in an interview with the University of Oslo’s research magazine Apollon.
“Our knowledge of organisms and the development of medicines are often based on comparative studies across species. It is, therefore, essential that we know the relationships between the largest groups in the great diversity of eukaryotes,” he adds.
The research group has, for example, found that brown algae and silica algae, and groups of single cell organisms like the malaria parasite, marine foraminifera, and the green sun animalcule (acanthocystis turfacea) actually belong to the same group. Previously, these species were thought to be completely unrelated.
“The work that we published in the August edition of PLoS One means that the description of the Tree of Life must be revised in new textbooks,” says Professor Kjetill S. Jakobsen from the University of Oslo’s Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES). He is also a member of the Microbial Evolution Research Group (MERG), led by Shalchian-Tabrizi, at the Department of Biology. MERG is one of 16 groups that the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences believes may have the potential to develop into new Centres of Excellence.
The New Branch
All life on Earth can be divided into two essentially different life forms—eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The eukaryotes gather their genetic material in a nucleus, while the prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) have their genetic material floating freely in the cell. Eukaryotic organisms—such as humans—can, as a result of the new findings, be divided into the following four categories:
Plants (green and red algae, and plants) Opisthokonts (amoebas, fungi, and all animals—including humans) Excavates (free-living organisms and parasites) SAR (the new main group, an abbreviation of Stramenophiles, Alveolates, and Rhizaria, the names of some of its members) “The SAR group has to some extent been identified earlier, but we could not know if it was a correct observation because we lacked statistical data. To get that data, we first had to reconstruct the entire eukaryote tree with the help of these 123 genes. Chromalveolates and rhizaria were clearly separate groups until we published our results,” says Shalchian-Tabrizi.
“To make the picture a little less clear, one branch of chromalveolates is still in no man’s land. It may be that these also belong to SAR, but we will require additional genes and genomes to study this. We have set our sights on doing that in the course of the next few years,” he adds.
Fewer Events
“The Tree of Life tells the story of life on Earth, and our research can say something about how quickly life developed. Our discovery suggests that there were fewer big “events” than we have previously assumed in the development of higher life forms. The more we know about the branches on the Tree of Life, the more we can find out about life’s Big Bang, the beginning of life on Earth,” says Shalchian-Tabrizi.
Three billion years ago, there was only bacteria and Archaea. Eukaryotic life, which comprises all multi-celled organisms, developed in the sea—probably between 1.2 and 1.6 billion years ago. It was not before about 500 million years ago that the first creatures crept onto land.
“By digging down into the historical layers with the help of phylogenetic reconstruction, where we can find out about kinship between organisms at the genetic level and we can find answers to questions about how new traits developed. We are working, in a matter of speaking, with genetic archaeology. In this manner, we can also discover the cause of the Earth’s biological diversity,” says Jakobsen.
Adapted from materials provided by University of Oslo.
Some creatures in Washington still haven't evolved.
Making sense out of primordial ooze should be the headline.
YEC INTREP
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Blam. So, the tree lost a branch? When did it leave? /rimshot |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
What is the topic of this article and what does this statement have to do with anything?
Even numbers suggest a balance, the yin and yang of the Tree of Life if you will.
This study apparentely shoves the odd branch out.
 |
Genetic Genealogy  |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off GGP list Marty = Paternal Haplogroup O(2?)(M175) Maternal Haplogroup H |
|
| GG LINKS: African Ancestry DNAPrint Genomics FamilyTree DNA mitosearch Nat'l Geographic Genographic Project Oxford Ancestors RelativeGenetics Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation Trace Genetics ybase ysearch |
|
| The List of Ping Lists | |
"And let's keep our supraesophageal ganglion to ourselves"
I’m looking over a four leaf clover
that I’ve overlooked before...
OK, I’ll bite. What exactly are Stramenophiles, Alveolates, and Rhizaria?
Clearly one of the few none-of-the-above answers to the first of 20 Questions.
But other than that?
To the lone praireee
Where eukaryotes howl
And the wind blows free....
Good stuff blam, as usual. The medical and other implications of this work are enormous.
The Tree of Life was never a problem. It was that Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that caused this mess.
The previous tree of life that was the most up to date was in The Ancestor’s Tale, by Richard Dawkins. I was going to post it for comparison, but darned if my boyfriend hasn’t run off with the book. Will try to get him to bring it back so I can share it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
