Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25534641›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular evolution2015

The non-biological meaning of the term "prokaryote" and its implications.

Massimo Di Giulio

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Physiology, phylogeny, and LUCA.Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Massimo Di GiulioEarly Evolution of Life Laboratory, Institute of Biosciences and Bioresources, CNR, Via P. Castellino, 111, 80131, Naples, Italy, massimo.digiulio@ibbr.cnr.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biological EvolutionArchaeaBacteriaPhylogeny

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.