ReviewBioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology2026
Eukaryogenesis: Did an Oxidative Crucible Result in Misleading Bioinformatic Analyses?
Review in BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Eukaryogenesis: Did an Oxidative Crucible Result in Misleading Bioinformatic Analyses?BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2026Review
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
Recently, Nature published a large-scale analysis ("Dated gene duplications elucidate the evolutionary assembly of eukaryotes" by Christopher Kay and co-workers) that seems to put an end to symbiogenic models for eukaryogenesis. They state that the pre-mitochondrion arrives late, after practically all of the signature eukaryotic characteristics have evolved independently. However, this conclusion is based on reconstructed timescales for the gene duplications allowing these crucial eukaryotic cell functions. The reconstruction might be fundamentally flawed, because enhanced internal ROS formation upon endosymbiont entry would lead to both high mutation rates and strong selection for antioxidant as well as repair functions. As the endosymbiont had co-evolved with molecular oxygen, while the archaeal host had not, a phylogenetic analysis might misconstrue the higher rate of change in the host as indicative of much longer timescales for host gene duplications.
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.