ReviewBiology2016
An Evolutionary Framework for Understanding the Origin of Eukaryotes.
Review in Biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translating Research on Evolutionary Transitions Into the Teaching of Hierarchical Complexity in University Biology Courses.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Succinate Dehydrogenase, Succinate, and Superoxides: A Genetic, Epigenetic, Metabolic, Environmental Explosive Crossroad.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- AMPK activates Parkin independent autophagy and improves post sepsis immune defense against secondary bacterial lung infections.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Endosymbiosis before eukaryotes: mitochondrial establishment in protoeukaryotes.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2020Review
- Cell Death in Evolutionary Transitions in Individuality.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2019Review
- Microbial Sterolomics as a Chemical Biology Tool.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Mitochondrial metabolites: undercover signalling molecules.Interface focus · 2017Review
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
Two major obstacles hinder the application of evolutionary theory to the origin of eukaryotes. The first is more apparent than real-the endosymbiosis that led to the mitochondrion is often described as "non-Darwinian" because it deviates from the incremental evolution championed by the modern synthesis. Nevertheless, endosymbiosis can be accommodated by a multi-level generalization of evolutionary theory, which Darwin himself pioneered. The second obstacle is more serious-all of the major features of eukaryotes were likely present in the last eukaryotic common ancestor thus rendering comparative methods ineffective. In addition to a multi-level theory, the development of rigorous, sequence-based phylogenetic and comparative methods represents the greatest achievement of modern evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, the rapid evolution of major features in the eukaryotic stem group requires the consideration of an alternative framework. Such a framework, based on the contingent nature of these evolutionary events, is developed and illustrated with three examples: the putative intron proliferation leading to the nucleus and the cell cycle; conflict and cooperation in the origin of eukaryotic bioenergetics; and the inter-relationship between aerobic metabolism, sterol synthesis, membranes, and sex. The modern synthesis thus provides sufficient scope to develop an evolutionary framework to understand the origin of eukaryotes.
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.