Are We All Actually Archaea?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 жов 2022
- Check out another Complexly production: Journey To The Microcosmos / microcosmos
The unexpected discovery of an entirely new domain of life was pretty huge and surprising - even if archaea do just look like bacteria. But, in recent years, it’s been their connection to us that's turned out to be particularly full of surprises - ones that may mean we have a connection to a group known as Asgard.
*****
PBS Member Stations rely on viewers like you. To support your local station, go to to.pbs.org/DonateEons
*****
Produced by Complexly for PBS Digital Studios
Super special thanks to the following Patreon patrons for helping make Eons possible:
Amanda Ward, Stephen Patterson, Mark Foster, Karen Farrell, Trevor Long, Raphael Haase, daniel blankstein, Roberto Adrian Ramirez Flores, Jason Rostoker, Jonathan Rust, Avery Sanford, Mary Tevington, Bart & Elke van Iersel - De Jong, William Craig II, James Dowling-Healey, Irene Wood, Derek Helling, WilCatRhClPPh33, Mark Talbott-Williams, Nomi Alchin, Hillary Ryde-Collins, Yu Mei, Dan Ritter, 4th_phase, Jayme Coyle, Ben Cooper, Albert Folsom, Oscar Amoros Huguet, Patrick Wells, Matt Parker, Jerrit Erickson, MissyElliottSmith, Stefan Weber, Dan Caffee, Merri Snaidman, Gabriel Cortez, Stephanie Tan, Marcus Lejon, Nick Ryhajlo, Sean Dennis, Betsy Radley, Anthony, Philip Slingerland, John Vanek, Eric Vonk, Jon Monteiro, James Bording, Miles Chaston, Michael McClellan, Jeff Graham, Daisuke Goto, Gregory Kintz, Chandler Bass, Tsee Lee, and Robert Hill.
If you'd like to support the channel, head over to / eons and pledge for some cool rewards!
Want to follow Eons elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / eonsshow
Twitter - / eonsshow
Instagram - / eonsshow
References: docs.google.com/document/d/13... - Розваги
Thanks to our incredible patrons for making our show possible. If you want to support the show, join us over at patreon.com/eons!
Thanks to the Patrons for keeping this going for us all
Applause to those that make it possible for us to enjoy your brilliant EON productions.
In the next video like this can you tell us the origin of the other organelles
Can you do one of these for viruses. I know they don't fit in the "Tree of Life" and they are not really "alive" but they have evolved (not really I know) over time right?
There's a few papers that put the fundamental split between bacteria and archaea into doubt. The extreme genetic divergence could stem from extreme selection pressure instead of length of time. Archaea might just be another, slightly unusual, bacterial family.
Maybe the real Archaea were the lifeforms we found along the way
Maybe the real Archaea was inside us this whole time.
It's all about the Archaea, not the destination
I'm absolutely crying 😂
Damn! Beat me to that comment! LMAO
And the lifeforms that evolved.
If pigeons get to be dinosaurs, then I want to be Asgardian.
So cladistic tells us:
We are Asgardians
Dolphins are Fish
Cave Man lived with Dinossaurs,
You can tell your phisicians that you eat (almost) only fish and vegetables.
@@fernandoc4741 It feels so wrong, but technically yes.🤣
Lucky for you pigeons aren't dinosaurs. Theres at least a 150 million year separation between the two.
But if you're asgardian, then pigeons are too :p
@@morewi No, they're dinosaurs, just as you and I are mammals, even though there are 150 millions years between us and the first mammals ^^
Sidenote: Lokis castle is such an awesome name for a field of underwater hydrothermal vents.
I got excited about this name almost more than about the main topic of the video (and the main topic is absolutely exciting to begin with)
It doesn't make sense though because castles don't exist in Norse mythology. Norse gods lived in large houses made of wood like Norse kings in real life. Castles weren't built in Scandinavia until the arrival of Christianity, which introduced the concept of erecting buildings out of stone (cathedrals, fortresses, etc).
@@abstract5249🤓
@@abstract5249 but its awesome
@@gloomyeyes1527 It's awesome, but unrealistic even from a mythological perspective. Since Norse mythology existed before Christianity was introduced to the region, its authors wouldn't have had any notion of castles or cathedrals. These elements were later added by authors and artists from the modern period (15th century onward), and largely by people outside of Scandinavia.
The idea that us eucaryotes are the crossing of the bacteria and archaea branches feels... right somehow. The branches weaving together to make something else greater than either branch would create alone.
lol, but wouldnt all three life forms come from an ancient prelife form, no matter where they come from ?
lol...
It definitely makes the most narrative sense. We are introduced to two characters, and lo and behold; those exact two characters end up together.
like a dnd character who is multiclass
Ancient archaea ate a bacterium and a virus and mutated into eukaryotes
Asgardarchaea also contains Wukongarchaea. The other members are mostly named after Norse gods. Sun Wukong must have gotten around.
Maybe he took his monkeying around a little too far north
Trickster gods like to be elsewhere
He must of made it way up north on his journey to the west
@@brandonn.1275 LMAOOO
That would mean the chance of Loki having seduced Wukong is over 0%.
It's kinda cool to think that we are all complex Archea colonies.
we aren't
@@dustyowl99
virgin NOOO IM NOT A STINKY BACTERIA IM NOT ONE OF THEM IM A SPECIAL MULTICELLULAR ORGANISM
vs
Chad: Yes, I'm a cool highly evolved archea colony
@@derpychicken2131 illiterate
No one is saying we're archaea colonies, we're not, we're multicellular eukaryotes. Colonies are only for unicellular organisms. All these researchers are suggesting is that eukaryotes evolved from a branch within Archaea, as opposed to Eukaryotes being a separate domain that is closely related to Archaea. Which is still extremely cool!
@@EMandMmms Why is it that colony is only reserved for unicellular organisms? What about the many colony forming hymenopterans like bees and ants? What about the multicellular organisms that function in colony like structures of thousands of individuals like SPS corals and siphonophores? Are they not colonies?
If the endosymbiont theory is correct, then Eukarya would be formed by fusion of two branches of Bacteria and Archea, rather than coming from just one of them
Most DNA would probably be from the archea though
@@BigEvan101 Mitochondria (the "bacteria part") have their own DNA and some of their genes were also transferred to the nucleus. We have DNA coming from both Archea and Bacteria, and we cannot be alive without the mitochondrial genes
Yes!
some mtdna has even been absorbed by our nuclear dna, so we truly are part-bacteria
The host cell that engulfed a bacterium is believed to be an Asgard archaean.
Also, the reason why Eukaryotes were in a third domain of their own was because, at the time, nobody was really sure where they came from, and just had them be descendent directly from LUCA instead; we now know that the First Eukaryotic Common Ancestor was likely an Asgard archaeon that somehow changed its membrane lipids and developed a nucleus, and later on acquired its first endosymbiont. Eukaryotes really should be under domain Archaea, the nucleus/host cell has hallmark archaeal traits (e.g. their ATPases, their method of DNA replication, their method of gene transcription) that's unique to them and not common in life due to horizontal gene transfer (some other archaea species not closely related to Asgard also have bacterial traits, some of which are unique to their species).
Man I love how science progresses. When I was in HS there was no domain just Kingdoms. Who knows what will change in the future. Really interesting for us science fans.
I recall that time but even then at the base of that tree was a trunk that was a confusing mess before it got to the two branches of plants and and Animals and fungi were an early branch of the plant side of that tree. Not realized at the time was how long and complex that trunk was before it got to the branches.
I’ve never heard of domain in my life
Oh there are a lot more than that lol
And the beat goes on! To be continued…
When i was in school pluto was a planet
So you mean to say Eukaryotes may be the result of an Archean getting freaky with a Bacterium?
*Loki approves of this*
OMG, you just... the bizzare descendance makes it too much perfect to be named Loki.
Well thankfully none of us are eight-legged horses. That I'm aware of at least.
If by "getting freaky" you mean engulfing, imprisoning, enslaving and exploiting, YES!
@@stephenderry9488So basically, a form of vore?
@@semaj_5022missed chance to call the common ancestor of eukarya a Sleifnir 😂
"They're called the Asgard Archaea because they're all named after Norse gods"
*me, looking at Wukongarchaeota quizzically*
That one was likely added later.
Nobody knows where this came from
Lovecraftian plot twist: we are Old Ones
They have found Loki's castle in the Arctic. Wait until they find Ctulhu's nightmarish palace in the Antarctic
I had no idea that archaea had only been part of the tree of life since 1990; that was so recent when I was in school.
When I was in middle school they were still teaching kingdom monera. I didn't learn that archaea were a thing until college, circa 2002.
Next generation sequencing has been revolutionary in our understanding of microbes. My thesis was mostly just complaining why taxonomy is a nightmare for Pseudomonas...something Woese pointed out in the 70's with DNA hybridization. Imagine what he could have done with today's technology.
@@Phorlakh when I was in 8th grade(freshman now) I remember getting a book from a the school library about monerans and gaskins about how outdated it was. I wonder how soon somebody will do that with our current books.
I matriculated in 1990 and was taught about archaea as a domain at school and had been aware of them since at least 1986. They were just a few types of weird stuff at that stage. It really depend on how up to date your syllabus was. By the time I was in college it was fairly clear that archaea were closer to eukaryotes than bacteria.
Now that I’m 50, this is the first I’m learning about any of the domains - fascinating!
I showed my friend your episode about giant viruses and they would like me to ask: if they did evolve from single celled organism, where in the tree of life would they fit?
I mean from whatever organism they evolved from.
@@orsonzedd are you the friend lmao
They’re not considered living organisms, so they aren’t part of the tree of life.
@@user-qy3jq9kr1d not by everyone
Giruses are very similar to bacteria, sometimes even bigger (in size and in genome) than them, and some regular viruses actually infect some of them too and have the funny science name "virophages"
@@user-qy3jq9kr1d I wanna see the viral tree of unlife then :P really, the evolution of viruses is super interesting, especially since they aren't (as) alive
So does that mean we're Archaeaologists?
If eukaryotes are a fusion between archaeans and bacteria, then technically we're both. It's the dreaded C++ diamond inheritance problem.
Mitochondria are a component / field, not a superclass, so there's no true diamond inheritence.
@@SimonClarkstone It's a mixin.
Composition, not inheritance!
Some biologists argue that the cell nucleus structure is very reminiscent of a virus, it evolved from a virus, so we might as well be a virus.
Turns out Agent Smith was right all along!
*Frantically looks for bullwhip*
Wouldn’t we be part of both domains if our mitochondrial DNA is from an ancient bacterium?
S-s-s-s-sort of. There is a difference though. If a bacterium had ingested an archaean, that'd be different from what happened, which was an archaean ingesting a bacterium. We're closer to the diner than the dinner, I think.
@@jcortese3300 Ingest and incorporated rather than digested. We refer to mitochondrial DNA as part of our DNA. Closer but in a way, I agree that we kind of qualify as both.
@@patrickmccurry1563 Um, I said ingested? And I'm pretty sure that eating it was probably the intention. :-)
I agree.
@@jcortese3300 - It was not "ingestion" but symbiosis.
2:33 "Most folks only think about microbes when they're doing something to or for them - like, causing disease or making beer." ... or doing both, e.g. Auto-Brewery Syndrome.
It would still be appropriate to have three domains especially if the theory that eukaryotes are the result of a obligate symbiosis between archaea and prokaryotes. At that point they would not really belong to one domain or the other but instead are the result of a chimaerization, meaning they don’t belong to one or the other, organelles wouldn’t be possible without prokaryotes and the living cell would not be possible without the archaea. Instead the bifurcation should look like a joining of the two branches.
By that logic; wouldn't lichen be considered a new kingdom because they are a cross between fungi and plants?
@@a2izzard Not yet. Lichen haven't merged their genomes at a cellular level, the way the archeaon and bacterial genomes merged in eukaryotes (where most of the original bacterial genes in the ur-mitochondria migrated over time to the nucleus of the eukaryote and fused into the original archaeon genome that was already there) leaving only a few genes behind in the modern mitochondrial genome. The fungal and plant cells in lichen are still distinct within the body of the lichen. Give them more time associating with one another though, and who knows? (We can ask a similar question about the algae and cnidarian cells that make up corals).
Right now it's pretty much an arbitrary definitional convention arrived at mostly by historical fiat that since the archaeon was the host cell into which the bacterium moved (and who was the "active" partner. Did the archaeon "swallow" the bacterium, or the bacterium "invade" the archeaon, or did they sort of just merged after living peaceably side by side for a long time), it's the archaeon that counts as the primary organism in the partnership and it's lineage should be considered the ancestral one.
That makes sense.
@@adamwu4565 some plants haven't yet merged their chloroplasts' DNA into their own, yet they still count as belonging under the Plant kingdom.
you carry oats; i carry oats; we all carry oats!
I don't know why that doesn't have hundreds of likes
Perhaps we should classify bacteria and archea the same way the Mer from “The Elder Scrolls” universe classify their deities, Aedra(Our Ancestors) and Daedra (Not Our Ancestors)
Aren’t the Aedra and the Daedra just two different sides of the same coin?
Your nerdity is so nerdy, I think you belong here
The problem is ancestries turn into tangles (and worse with horizontal gene transfer (which has happened repeatedly and more recently than anyone imagined thanks to retroviruses moving entire genes between completely unrelated genera).
@@shadowsonicsilver6 Yes and no. In The Elder Scrolls mythology, the Aedra were the ones to give up part of their powers to form the world and everything in it, while the Daedra chose to stay as rulers of their own individual, distorted realms. Adding to it, every Aedra (except Shor/Lorkhan, the first King of Gods) came primarily from the primordial divine entity Anu, a counterpoint to every Daedra coming primarily from Padomay, the primordial divine chaos.
Never expected to have a discussion about Elder Scrolls lore in a PBS Eons channel, though.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who likes to treat fantasy lore and real world lore the same way.
I was interested in the genes that were previously only thought to exist in eukarya. That sounds awesome.
I like PBS Eons because the hosts never look like they are reading lines. Looks like they really know this stuff and like talking about it.
Wait a second I just realized the Tree of Life has been redrawn since last I checked, amazing! Bacteria & Archaea are now their own domains entirely
I think that one os my favorites videos, AcapellaScience's Animalia, migh be a lil outdated.
What I love about the electron microscope images chosen by this video for Asgard archaea (imachi et al) is that this was also the first time when researchers observed a bacterium to be living in syntrophy with an archaeon, lending another possible step to how endosymbiosis/eukaryogenesis may have happened.
People can’t even accept that we’re apes.
This was so cool! Evolution of the immune system at some point?
I know right? I've been my entire life...
As a Norwegian, it was fun to see that they used names of our Norse Gods, that really made me smile
3:30 -- This was the first question that formed in my head while watching ("If bacteria make us sick and archaea don't, maybe that's because we're further away from bacteria"), and you answered it before I even asked. 🙂 Kind of like how we're very far away from fungi, and they seem to either want to kill us or make us trip balls.
Well, protozoans and fungi are much closer to human than archaea, and many of them still can make us sick
The fungi part doenst make sense, because we are closer to fungi than we are to more primitive archea
Not a bad line of reasoning, but consider that Fungi and Bacteria make us sick typically because of toxins they produce when they are breeding at a rapid level within our systems or the large number of them present within the organ system they infect. Also comparing biological pathogens with abiotic pathogens such as viruses and prons and closer relation typically mean there is a HIGHER chance of causing illness to the organisms. Also, we are not as far away on the tree of life from fungi as you might think based on cell structure and genetic evidence. :)
So I'm currently taking a third year microbiology course and the prof had us watch a short video on archaea by the Microbiology Society called, "Why don't archaea cause disease?".
Basically the situation as I've learned from the lecture we did on archaea is that we really don't know much about them in comparison to bacteria, with like 90% of the strains that we can grow coming from only 4 of the over 80 phyla we've identified so far. With the answer to the question "why don't archaea make us sick" being "maybe they don't but maybe they very well do and we just don't have the solid evidence yet to unravel any potential hints".
When they said in the episode that archaea are still an active area of research with their phylogeny still being debated, they really meant it. So you're right to think that, some researchers think that too which is why it was said in the episode, but again this area has a lot of debate going on right now.
@J Cortese that statement doesn't make sense in several ways. For one, as was already pointed out, that fungi are closer to us than primitive archea.
But also, plants and animals are, too, and there's definitely some plants and animals that can make us sick or even kill us (even if we ignore large predators that might just simply eat us - which still counts, though!).
And third, there's a wide variety of fungi that are regularly eaten by humans as regular food, i.e. for nutrition without sickness or hallucinations and sometimes even with additional health benefits.
I thought this was a video from Journey to the Microcosmos when I saw it. Just coincidence that you put out a video about microbes right when I have just realized how amazing of a world it is. Microbes are definitely under appreciated, it's crazy how few views that channel gets for how amazing the subject matter is. There's so much microbe diversity it's mind-blowing, you can discover things completely new to science just as an amateur because there's so many and they are everywhere, and yes, they seem to have been neglected compared to some other scientific fields unfortunately. Very interesting video! Ope, just saw the recommendation for that channel at the end, that's great, more exposure for a wonderful channel.
I also thought this was a Journey to the Microcosmos video before I read the channel name
I was just wondering if those circles, or domains, could be looked at more as Venn Diagrams? The overlap would be from the genetic transfer of information that comes from symbiosis, or in some cases, infection and parasitism. That would probably affront our sense of placing everything in distinct categories but it would acknowledge that there is an ecology of interrelationships that ultimately affect genetic outcomes.
They named one of those Archaeota after Sun Wukong, but it still gets lumped in with Asgard.
Even in his own myths and stories Sun Wukong moves around in multiple pantheons, so it sounds in character to me.
Clearly it was during his 'Journey to the West' phase.
@@smockboyhe can defy heaven army of the east, surely he'll be handy in upcoming Ragnarog 😂
Hmm. Most scientists regard the "three domain hypothesis" as oversimplistic. Alpha-proteobacteria, which gave rise to mitochondria, also contributed genes to our nuclear genome. In eukaryotes, when you look at all prokaryotic-derived genes, anout 60% are eubacterial in origin (most of our metabolism) and only 40% are archaeal-derived. So to say that we are archaeal, overlooks the fact that we have more genes from eubacteria. Most scientists now think of eukaryotes as true fusions between the two. And yes, PART of our lineage is from the asgard.
Even a tree is a very debatable and a very human centric way of picturing life. Multicellular life is wayyy less diverse than microbes. Bacteria and archea do a lot more fancy completely crazy different things than animals and plants do at the fundamental levels. It's like trying to organize different cars you see around in your neighbourhood and stumbling upon an airplane, a tank, a submarine, a catapult , a helicopter, and an underwater hyperloop and labeling collectively them as military.
Particularly a tree doesn't make sense when considering that unicellular organisms can exchange genes horizontally and absorb it from the enviroment which is magical and messes up using genes to identity life.
@@islandfireballkill underwater hyperloop? You mean the Watergate submersible?
Aren't some of those eubacterial genes found in some archaea too? What about the chances that those genes were convergently evolved, rather than inherited? Also, you're overlooking rRNA lineage; we're most definitely more related to archaea, because not only are Asgard (and some other related lineages of archaea) the only prokaryotes that have "eukaryote signature proteins", their ribosomes also happened to be ancestral to our ribosomes.
When we're looking for genetic relationships between organisms, we're not just looking for the coding genes, we're looking for as much of the entire DNA sequence (genome) as possible. Bacteria tend to have shorter genomes, and I honestly don't know if any of them have most/all of their entire genome that is a significant chunk of that 60% in eukaryotes.
Now this is premium content
I absolutely love to see the recontextualization of our world that comes with cladistics and placing eukaryotes (almost certainly) within archaea is such a great example of this. And why shouldn't we understand ourselves as descended from archaea? It's simply true!
Aaaw yes, always ready to learn something new with these vids, they way you awesome people present and deliver information is awesome! Great stuff :3
Excellent, as usual ! Will make sure to use this video in my biology courses . Keep up the AMAZING work !!
I love eons, i love the presenters they’re so real so easy to watch and listen to, i’m hooked and learning.
Actually, when it comes to the microbiology research, it is a current consensus that Eukaryotes come from Archaea, and are a sister group of Asgard! Of course, everything is debatable, however, cultivation-independent methods of researching microorganisms (so basically experiments on DNA and RNA of high accuracy) confirmed that. We are way, way further away from Bacteria than we originally thought, and when it comes to our legacy - we are nothing but just a small part of a huge domain... It is weird to think that we are not as special as we thought throughout the whole human history, but it's also fascinating how much we actually don't know about the world we live in.
(Main) sources:
Zaremba et al. (2017) - Asgard archaea illuminate the origin of eukaryotic cellular complexity
Castelle, Banfield (2018) - Major New Microbial Groups Expand Diversity and Alter our Understanding of the Tree of Life (
Biology is just drawing very fuzzy lines between everything
It actually makes sense. The species wouldn't all diverge at the same time, if they did in fact all come from a common ancestor. So, either two groups happened independently, or after the first split, there was a period before another branch sprouted.
Would study of this make someone an Archea-ologist?
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Asgardarchaea 😉
love you guys and your videos. thank you for your hard work and creative minds!
Maybe it’s my age but this title means Stargate SG1 rather than MCU to me 😁
On a more serious note, thank you for sharing this fascinating summary.
Wow this was a very cool and educational video. I never knew any of this information previously, and found it fascinating. I was having difficulty remembering the name of what our domain was coined as, Eukaryotes until I realized it could be remembered mnemonically as 'You carry oats.' Thank you for this informative and easily digested video for laymen like myself.
This show has taught me so much
Excellent content, please keep this up!
Another great show, always a fun and interesting experience.
Seems like Sun Wukong, the fabulous Monke King, is the odd archaeota out, being decidedly non-Asgardian. What if we all came from him?
Like Thor said, Archea isn't a place, it's a people
Lmao Kallie with the scale bar at the beginning, you really are so damn excited about that thing xD. I kept laughing about it every time you brought it up on the stream while I was cooking dinner, thinking of all the times I've used various common objects as scale bars because I didn't have a ruler or something to put in the photo instead. Those who can afford the donation will greatly benefit from this if they take a lot of photos that need scales in them :)
What even *is* a scale bar? I've never heard of them
@@emimimimimimimi I never have either, but I think it's just a checkered object of known size, used in photography so you can know the scale of the photo afterwards.
But I thought bananas had become a universal constant for scale.
Oh, I thought it was for weighing things. The announcement needed another sentence lol
Hello my fellow archaea how are you all doing.
Well enough, thank you for asking.
Awesome channel with awesome content and great quality as always say 🌍
That is both awesome and giggle worthy because of the naming... but can we also just stop and appreciate that ONE of those "Asgardians" is named Wukong!!
"this archaea species group are related, let's name them with norse gods theme"
"uh, wukong archaea might also be in this group"
Welcome to Valhalla, Sun Wukong!
6:56 Wukongarcheota says hi
I always knew I was IKEA
I found this channel all thanks to journey to the microcosmos 😃😃
And trust me, both of the channels are absolutely mesmorising and informativly interseting
😁
I'd just like to give a big thank you for sharing the infomation and developing my interest in this subject 😄💚
As a working biologist I don’t have time to do the readings I’d like to to keep up to date. But I’ll definitely be making time to read up on the Archea.
Love your work. Thank you.
I love the feeling of, yep that’s how I was taught, oh wait, there’s more!
Yes! Finally new episode! ❤️❤️❤️
This video is also called “How to tell when Millennial nerds took over naming scientific discoveries: look for possible comic book or meme references” 😂 love it!
We are all Asgardians from the Jedi branch, closely related cousins to the Yu-Gi-Ohs.
This video is rather called "How to tell when scientific expedition from Norway took over naming their discoveries: they know that when someone mentions Loki, Odin and Thor, comics are NOT the first that comes to mind"
Those are references to Norse mythology, not comics...
They were called Asgard because they were first discovered in "Loki's Castle" (the hydrothermal vent system), and is also in reference to or influenced by the region's folklore/mythology (Scandinavian).
We were recently talking about these archaea in one of my microbiology courses, it’s very cool to see that we might be getting closer to finding our last common ancestor with the archaea! In my classes, it’s taught that it was most likely an archaea that underwent endosymbiosis, though eukaryotic cell biology is different enough that I doubt we’ll be shifting to a two-domain system anytime soon.
Part of why the Asgard archaeota are such a cool and promising new field of research is how they relate to how endosymbiosis works. Eukaryotes could gain endosymbiotic organelles (like mitochondria) because they have, and whatever their ancestors were also must have had, the ability to engulf things. For this, you need a dynamic cytoskeleton - a kind of internal scaffolding that can be built and rebuilt quickly to change the cell's shape, form membrane-bound compartments, and move things around inside the cell.
Bacteria don't have this kind of machinery, so they can't eat anything - just suck up molecules through their cell membranes. But, as the video touched on, the Asgard archaeota have some genes previously only known in eukaryotes, and these very notably include some of the genetic machinery needed to build a dynamic cytoskeleton.
This strongly indicates that there exist or have existed Asgard relatives that *could* swallow stuff, and that this led to the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes.
I know it’s not the same thing, but it reminds me of the symbiotic relationship we have with our gut bacteria
Bacteria are so chill, they'll just do their chemical processing thing anywhere. In the ocean, on land, in deep underground rocks, in ice, inside an archaean, in a plant cell, in your gut, all over that pizza you forgot was under your bed...
i love the lone sun wukong in the mess of asgardians
I'm glad someone else noticed that the Great Sage Equal of Heaven had snuck into Asgard 😂
When I got my tree of life cladogram tattoo, I knew I'd anticipate with excitement and dread the day that it becomes inaccurate. There was a kerfuffle a while ago about porifera/ctenophora positions, but that's small potatoes compared to this!
Do you know what's great about this channel? They are taking about tiny organism that most people have never heard of, and it's interesting and fun. Absolutely love it.
The book- The Suprising Archaea, by John Howland, talked about this 40 years ago
I was wondering where I had heard something about this before.
Edit: I just found it on thriftbook for $6.29 📕
Great episode! If anyone would like to take a deeper dive into how eukaryotes may have evolved from an archaea having a bacterial endosymbiont, I highly recommend the book,"The Vital Question", by the biochemist, Dr. Nick Lane> :)
Thank you for this new update!
mindblowing 😎👍
I look forward to whatever more is discovered about Archaea and if Eukaryotes are actually a branch within Archaea.
I am archaea
I'm archaea too!
Yeah.... Me too. I'm archaea af
And you will soon all be crab
I are baboon?
As a complex collection of molecules arranged in patterns that form multiple cells, I have always wondered how it feels to be a single celled collection of molecules arranged in patterns, like when you bump into somebody else, is it like NO YOU ARE SO DIFFERENT or is it like HEY WHOA ARE WE FORMING ANOTHER BRANCH OF LIFE OR ARE YOU JUST HAPPY TO SEE ME
Thank you for qualifying the "if you're from planet earth" bit, fellow humans.
That’s so cool! This video blew my mind
You guys are amazing
Makes me wonder... maybe its possible to (somehow) trigger endosymbiosis in a lab, turning outside bacterium to an organelle
For around 4 billion years bacteria and archaea were the only life on Earth. Floating around, bumping into each other. So far as we know, in all that time, this engulfment incident happened in such a way as to create a new evolutionarily successful lineage once. When we think about life evolving on other planets, the millions of billions of planets with similar conditions to primordial Earth, it's this kind of rarity that should give us pause, particularly as there were other improbable events within the same timescale, that to our knowledge only happened once (or 25 times in the case of multicellularity). Events we have also yet to produce, trigger or recreate in a lab.
@@stephenderry9488 Which would make it even cooler if we can actually do such a thing!
Ah yes, Sun Wukong the Monkey King. Mischievous fellow and stalwart member of the Asgardians.
I love your Videos! Thank you for enlightining us!
And to think that just a few years ago my school was teaching me the terribly outdated 5 kingdoms classification
Metallic Archaea? That's the only kind I know, didn't know archaea were real.
So interesting and exciting, We have so much to learn!
This would fit because I definitely feel like an old one on a morning
I am terrible at remembering the host's names! Regardless, the bit of warmup put at the end was so fun!
And as always the science was fascinating 💖
So... We could have all come from Asgard?
If "Archaea" means "The Old Ones," then to hell with the Asgardian references: we're due for some CTHULHU jokes!
For all the reasons and more I love PBS
Ahh, but (according to some recent analyses) it’s looking increasingly likely that the Archaea aren’t monophyletic.
Oh thank you for making me not the only one here aware of this. This entire episode makes me angry cry it's so misleading.
I would love to know the reference of this (either doi or author + research article title)
I would also like a reference for this because I haven't found anything.
OK. This is a bit complicated but I’ll do my best. To some extent this depends on what you mean by Archaea. As this video says, it’s looking pretty clear that eucarya (at least when it comes to nuclear encoded genes) are a sister group to Asgard. This is not consistent with a 3-domain model with monophyletic clades: (eu)bacteria, archaea, eucarya. From multiple studies (most of which focus on ribosomal gene sequences) imply that there are two clades: bacteria and non-bacteria, with the latter containing archaea and eucarya. If eucarya are are defined as a domain and archaea are defined as non-eubacteria prokaryotes, then eucarya are monophyletic and archaea are paraphyletic. The alternative is that eucarya are a sub clade of the non-bacterial clade (which would then be a monophyletic archaea). For a discussion, see DOI fmicb.2018.01896.
But it gets more complicated….
We can't all be archea John Green said we're all fish...
Fish come way later, this wouldn't change that.
It would just shift where fish (and us) are classified.
Fish are eukarya. Which under this proposed model would also be archaea
Don’t tell Carl that! He was very finicky about his 3 domain proposal.
Also The Tangled Tree by David Quammen is a great book if you like this topic.
the wukonarchiotia is a bit of an outlier, but I love the reference
My favorite part was when the archae bateria said "It's archean' time"
and then archaed all over the seas and land?
Can you cover the evolution of brains?
Evolution is often a crossbreed of multiple organisms.
the way you drew the diagramm, Archaea & Eukarya are in the same branch originally, separate from Bacteria
This made my heart jump to see… I study Archaea!!!!!!!!!
Here History of Science studying their discovery
Danke!
Awesome! I'll be an Asguardian! Now we just need to find out what type of bacterium became the mitochondria!
Her: “Perhaps the tree of life only has two domains afterall”
Graduate Biologist: “Oh, you can't do this to me... I-I studied this three way domain! YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I SACRIFICED?”
Could you please do more episodes on human ancestry? Like about the earliest known human ancestor. If we have found it... :P
Edit: I mean from before hominins, hopefully I wrote the correct word. And way beyond that as much as possible, please!!
Check out @gutsickgibbon, she has great videos on hominoid evolution
@@golddragonette7795 Yea, I second that! I love her videos!
@@orchdork775 Okay, I will!
I think the 3 domains the way they are still makes the most sense. they are on the same branch and its more useful separate with how big the differences are between the 2.
I love how at 4:12 you revealed that archaea are closer to eukaryotes than to bacteria despite showing that that is the case in family trees like four times before that