Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7972066›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America1994

Chimeric conundra: are nucleomorphs and chromists monophyletic or polyphyletic?

T Cavalier-Smith, M T Allsopp, E E Chao

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A receptor tyrosine kinase from choanoflagellates: molecular insights into early animal evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2001
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Extrachromosomal DNA in the Apicomplexa.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 1997
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Second-hand chloroplasts and the case of the disappearing nucleus.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 1996
    Review
  13. Article
  14. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T Cavalier-SmithCanadian Institute for Advanced Research Evolutionary Biology Program, Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
M T Allsopp
E E Chao
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All algae with chloroplasts located not freely in the cytosol, but inside two extra membranes, probably arose chimerically by the permanent fusion of two different eukaryote cells: a protozoan host and a eukaryotic algal symbiont. Two such groups, cryptomonads (phylum Cryptista) and Chlorarachniophyta, still retain a DNA-containing relic of the nucleus of the algal endosymbiont, known as the nucleomorph, as well as the host nucleus. These two phyla were traditionally assumed to have obtained their chloroplasts separately by two independent symbioses. We have sequenced the nuclear and the nucleomorph 18S rRNA genes of the nonphotosynthetic cryptomonad Chilomonas paramecium. Our phylogenetic analysis suggests that cryptomonad and chlorarachniophyte nucleomorphs may be related to each other and raises the possibility that both phyla may have diverged from a common ancestral chimeric cell that originated by a single endosymbiosis involving an algal endosymbiont related to the ancestor of red algae. But, because of the instability of the molecular trees when different taxa are added, there is insufficient evidence to overturn the traditional view that Chlorarachnion nucleomorphs evolved separately from a relative of green algae. The four phyla that contain chromophyte algae (those with chlorophyll c--i.e., Cryptista, Heterokonta, Haptophyta, Dinozoa) are distantly related to each other and to Chlorarachniophyta on our trees. However, all of the photosynthetic taxa within each of these four phyla radiate from each other very substantially after the radiation of the four phyla themselves. This favors the view that the common ancestor of these four phyla was not photosynthetic and that chloroplasts were implanted separately into each much more recently. This probable polyphyly of the chromophyte algae, if confirmed, would make it desirable to treat Cryptista, Heterokonta, and Haptophyta as separate kingdoms, rather than to group them together in the single kingdom Chromista.

Indexed as

AnimalsBase SequenceEukaryotaFungiMolecular Sequence DataPhylogenyPlantsRNA, Ribosomal, 18SSequence Homology, Nucleic AcidRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID7972066
PMCPMC45232
OpenAlexW2054938731

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.