ArticleBiology direct2011
Endosymbiont or host: who drove mitochondrial and plastid evolution?
Article in Biology direct, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protein import into bacterial endosymbionts and evolving organelles.The FEBS journal · 2025Review
- Improved plant biomass production under low nitrogen conditions through conditional accumulation of the second messenger, guanosine tetraphosphate, in chloroplasts and mitochondria.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Cross-Species Functional Conservation and Possible Origin of the N-Terminal Specificity Domain of Mitochondrial Presequences.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- Nuclear Envelope-Associated Chromosome Dynamics during Meiotic Prophase I.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2017Review
- Metabolic connectivity as a driver of host and endosymbiont integration.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015Article
- The plant LINC complex at the nuclear envelope.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2014Review
- How protein targeting to primary plastids via the endomembrane system could have evolved? A new hypothesis based on phylogenetic studies.Biology direct · 2013Article
- Protein import into the photosynthetic organelles ofSymbiosis (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2012Article
- Cytochrome c oxidase: evolution of control via nuclear subunit addition.Biochimica et biophysica acta · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recognition that mitochondria and plastids are derived from alphaproteobacterial and cyanobacterial endosymbionts, respectively, was one of the greatest advances in modern evolutionary biology. Researchers have yet however to provide detailed cell biological descriptions of how these once free-living prokaryotes were transformed into intracellular organelles. A key area of study in this realm is elucidating the evolution of the molecular machines that control organelle protein topogenesis. Alcock et al. (Science 2010, 327 [5966]:649-650) suggest that evolutionary innovations that established the mitochondrial protein sorting system were driven by the alphaproteobacterial endosymbiont (an "insiders' perspective"). In contrast, here we argue that evolution of mitochondrial and plastid topogenesis may better be understood as an outcome of selective pressures acting on host cell chromosomes (the "outsiders' view").
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.