ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2015
The non-biological meaning of the term "prokaryote" and its implications.
Article in Journal of molecular evolution, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The indefinable term 'prokaryote' and the polyphyletic origin of genes.Journal of genetics · 2017Article
- Physiology, phylogeny, and LUCA.Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The meaning of the term prokaryote is critically analyzed. The conclusion reached is that this term does not have a real biological sense, above all because we are not able to link to this term a specific biological characteristic, i.e. the hypothetical evolutionary stage of the prokaryote would seem to have been unable to result in a completed cell, which could possibly be due to the recapitulation of the fundamental characteristics that might have been common to bacteria and archaea. This would define a biological immaturity of this evolutionary stage because otherwise we would have found traits already clearly defined at this level of cellular evolution. Therefore, the lack of well-defined traits characterising the prokaryote would seem to imply an evolutionary stage still in rapid evolution, i.e. with a tempo and a mode of evolution typical of a progenote. This in turn would seem to imply that the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) has been a progenote at least when the domains of life are only two-the bacterial and archaeal domains-because, in this case, the LUCA's node should coincide with that of prokaryote on the tree of life. Instead, if the root of the tree of life would be placed in the bacterial domain or in the archaeal one, we might again, very likely, have a LUCA with a character of progenote being, under these conditions, the LUCA a prokaryote-like organism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25534641What 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.