4.5 Article

Integrated genomic and fossil evidence illuminates life's early evolution and eukaryote origin

期刊

NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
卷 2, 期 10, 页码 1556-1562

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-018-0644-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NERC GW4 PhD studentship
  2. BBSRC SWBio PhD studentship
  3. 1851 Royal Commission Fellowship
  4. BBSRC [BB/N000919/1]
  5. Royal Society Fellowship
  6. NERC [NE/P00251X/1]
  7. BBSRC [BB/N000919/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. NERC [NE/P013678/1, NE/P00251X/1, NE/N003438/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Establishing a unified timescale for the early evolution of Earth and life is challenging and mired in controversy because of the paucity of fossil evidence, the difficulty of interpreting it and dispute over the deepest branching relationships in the tree of life. Surprisingly, it remains perhaps the only episode in the history of life where literal interpretations of the fossil record hold sway, revised with every new discovery and reinterpretation. We derive a timescale of life, combining a reappraisal of the fossil material with new molecular clock analyses. We find the last universal common ancestor of cellular life to have predated the end of late heavy bombardment (>3.9 billion years ago (Ga)). The crown clades of the two primary divisions of life, Eubacteria and Archaebacteria, emerged much later (<3.4 Ga), relegating the oldest fossil evidence for life to their stem lineages. The Great Oxidation Event significantly predates the origin of modern Cyanobacteria, indicating that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved within the cyanobacterial stem lineage. Modern eukaryotes do not constitute a primary lineage of life and emerged late in Earth's history (<1.84 Ga), falsifying the hypothesis that the Great Oxidation Event facilitated their radiation. The symbiotic origin of mitochondria at 2.053-1.21 Ga reflects a late origin of the total-group Alphaproteobacteria to which the free living ancestor of mitochondria belonged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据