Origin of the cell nucleus

The symbiotic origin of the eukaryotic cell

Eukaryogenesis represented a major evolutionary transition that led to the emergence of complex cells from simpler ancestors. For several decades, the most accepted scenario involved the evolution of an independent lineage of proto-eukaryotes endowed with an endomembrane system, including a nuclear compartment, a developed cytoskeleton and phagocytosis, which engulfed the alphaproteobacterial ancestor of mitochondria. However, the recent discovery by metagenomic and cultural approaches of Asgard archaea, which harbour many genes in common with eukaryotes and are their closest relatives in phylogenomic trees, rather supports scenarios based on the symbiosis of one Asgard-like archaeon and one or more bacteria at the origin of the eukaryotic cell. Here, we review the recent discoveries that led to this conceptual shift, briefly evoking current models of eukaryogenesis and the challenges ahead to discriminate between them and to establish a detailed, plausible scenario that accounts for the evolution of eukaryotic traits from those of their prokaryotic ancestors.

Nuclear architecture and the structural basis of mitotic memory

The nucleus is a complex organelle that hosts the genome and is essential for vital processes like DNA replication, DNA repair, transcription, and splicing. The genome is non-randomly organized in the three-dimensional space of the nucleus. This functional sub-compartmentalization was thought to be organized on the framework of nuclear matrix (NuMat), a non-chromatin scaffold that functions as a substratum for various molecular processes of the nucleus. More recently, nuclear bodies or membrane-less subcompartments of the nucleus are thought to arise due to phase separation of chromatin, RNA, and proteins. The nuclear architecture is an amalgamation of the relative organization of chromatin, epigenetic landscape, the nuclear bodies, and the nucleoskeleton in the three-dimensional space of the nucleus. During mitosis, the nucleus undergoes drastic changes in morphology to the degree that it ceases to exist as such; various nuclear components, including the envelope that defines the nucleus, disintegrate, and the chromatin acquires mitosis-specific epigenetic marks and condenses to form chromosome. Upon mitotic exit, chromosomes are decondensed, re-establish hierarchical genome organization, and regain epigenetic and transcriptional status similar to that of the mother cell. How this mitotic memory is inherited during cell division remains a puzzle. NuMat components that are a part of the mitotic chromosome in the form of mitotic chromosome scaffold (MiCS) could potentially be the seeds that guide the relative re-establishment of the epigenome, chromosome territories, and the nuclear bodies. Here, we synthesize the advances towards understanding cellular memory of nuclear architecture across mitosis and propose a hypothesis that a subset of NuMat proteome essential for nucleation of various nuclear bodies are retained in MiCS to serve as seeds of mitotic memory, thus ensuring the daughter cells re-establish the complex status of nuclear architecture similar to that of the mother cells, thereby maintaining the pre-mitotic transcriptional status.

Medusavirus Ancestor in a Proto-Eukaryotic Cell: Updating the Hypothesis for the Viral Origin of the Nucleus

The mechanistic evolutionary origin of the eukaryotic cell nucleus remains unknown. Among several plausible hypotheses, the most controversial is that large DNA viruses, such as poxviruses, led to the emergence of the eukaryotic cell nucleus. Several recent findings, including the discovery of a nucleus-like structure in prokaryotic viruses and prokaryotes possessing nucleus-like inner membranes, suggest genomic DNA compartmentalization not only in eukaryotes but also in prokaryotes. The sophisticated viral machinery of mimiviruses is thought to resemble the eukaryotic nucleus: DNA replicates both inside the viral factory and nucleus, which is at least partially surrounded by membranes and is devoid of ribosomes. Furthermore, several features of the recently identified Acanthamoeba castellanii medusavirus suggest that the evolutionary relationship between ancestral viral factory and eukaryotic nucleus. Notably, Ran, DNA polymerase, and histones show molecular fossils of lateral transfer of nuclear genes between the virus and host. These results suggest viral innovation in the emergence of the eukaryotic nucleus. According to these results, a new scenario explaining the origin of the eukaryotic nucleus from the perspective of viral participation is proposed. This new scenario could substantially impact the study of eukaryogenesis and stimulate further discussion about viral contributions to the evolution of the eukaryotic nucleus.

A comparison of autogenous theories for the origin of eukaryotic cells

PREMISE

Eukaryotic cells have many unique features that all evolved on the stem lineage of living eukaryotes, making it difficult to reconstruct the order in which they accumulated. Nuclear endosymbiotic theories hold that three prokaryotes (nucleus, cytoplasm, and mitochondrion) came together to form a eukaryotic cell, whereas autogenous models hold that the nucleus and cytoplasm formed through evolutionary changes in a single prokaryotic lineage. Given several problems with nuclear endosymbiotic theories, this review focuses on autogenous models.

KEY INSIGHTS

Until recently all autogenous models assumed an outside-in (OI) topology, proposing that the nuclear envelope was formed from membrane-bound vesicles within the original cell body. Buzz Baum and I recently proposed an inside-out (IO) alternative, suggesting that the nucleus corresponds to the original cell body, with the cytoplasmic compartment deriving from extracellular protrusions. In this review, I show that OI and IO models are compatible with both mitochondria early (ME) or mitochondria late (ML) formulations. Whereas ME models allow that the relationship between mitochondria and host was mutualistic from the outset, ML models imply that the association began with predation or parasitism, becoming mutualistic later. In either case, the mutualistic interaction that eventually formed was probably syntrophic.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverse features of eukaryotic cell biology align well with the IOME model, but it would be premature to rule out the OIME model. ML models require that phagocytosis, a complex and energy expensive process, evolved before mitochondria, which seems unlikely. Nonetheless, further research is needed, especially resolution of the phylogenetic affinities of mitochondria.

Endosymbiotic theories for eukaryote origin

For over 100 years, endosymbiotic theories have figured in thoughts about the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. More than 20 different versions of endosymbiotic theory have been presented in the literature to explain the origin of eukaryotes and their mitochondria. Very few of those models account for eukaryotic anaerobes. The role of energy and the energetic constraints that prokaryotic cell organization placed on evolutionary innovation in cell history has recently come to bear on endosymbiotic theory. Only cells that possessed mitochondria had the bioenergetic means to attain eukaryotic cell complexity, which is why there are no true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. Current versions of endosymbiotic theory have it that the host was an archaeon (an archaebacterium), not a eukaryote. Hence the evolutionary history and biology of archaea increasingly comes to bear on eukaryotic origins, more than ever before. Here, we have compiled a survey of endosymbiotic theories for the origin of eukaryotes and mitochondria, and for the origin of the eukaryotic nucleus, summarizing the essentials of each and contrasting some of their predictions to the observations. A new aspect of endosymbiosis in eukaryote evolution comes into focus from these considerations: the host for the origin of plastids was a facultative anaerobe.

Origin and evolution of metabolic sub-cellular compartmentalization in eukaryotes

A high level of subcellular compartmentalization is a hallmark of eukaryotic cells. This intricate internal organization was present already in the common ancestor of all extant eukaryotes, and the determination of the origins and early evolution of the different organelles remains largely elusive. Organellar proteomes are determined through regulated pathways that target proteins produced in the cytosol to their final subcellular destinations. This internal sorting of proteins can vary across different physiological conditions, cell types and lineages. Evolutionary retargeting - the alteration of a subcellular localization of a protein in the course of evolution - has been rampant in eukaryotes and involves any possible combination of organelles. This fact adds another layer of difficulty to the reconstruction of the origins and evolution of organelles. In this review we discuss current themes in relation to the origin and evolution of organellar proteomes. Throughout the text, a special focus is set on the evolution of mitochondrial and peroxisomal proteomes, which are two organelles for which extensive proteomic and evolutionary studies have been performed.

An inside-out origin for the eukaryotic cell

BACKGROUND

Although the origin of the eukaryotic cell has long been recognized as the single most profound change in cellular organization during the evolution of life on earth, this transition remains poorly understood. Models have always assumed that the nucleus and endomembrane system evolved within the cytoplasm of a prokaryotic cell.

RESULTS

Drawing on diverse aspects of cell biology and phylogenetic data, we invert the traditional interpretation of eukaryotic cell evolution. We propose that an ancestral prokaryotic cell, homologous to the modern-day nucleus, extruded membrane-bound blebs beyond its cell wall. These blebs functioned to facilitate material exchange with ectosymbiotic proto-mitochondria. The cytoplasm was then formed through the expansion of blebs around proto-mitochondria, with continuous spaces between the blebs giving rise to the endoplasmic reticulum, which later evolved into the eukaryotic secretory system. Further bleb-fusion steps yielded a continuous plasma membrane, which served to isolate the endoplasmic reticulum from the environment.

CONCLUSIONS

The inside-out theory is consistent with diverse kinds of data and provides an alternative framework by which to explore and understand the dynamic organization of modern eukaryotic cells. It also helps to explain a number of previously enigmatic features of cell biology, including the autonomy of nuclei in syncytia and the subcellular localization of protein N-glycosylation, and makes many predictions, including a novel mechanism of interphase nuclear pore insertion.

Prokaryote or eukaryote? A unique microorganism from the deep sea

There are only two kinds of organisms on the Earth: prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Although eukaryotes are considered to have evolved from prokaryotes, there were no previously known intermediate forms between them. The differences in their cellular structures are so vast that the problem of how eukaryotes could have evolved from prokaryotes is one of the greatest enigmas in biology. Here, we report a unique organism with cellular structures appearing to have intermediate features between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, which was discovered in the deep sea off the coast of Japan using electron microscopy and structome analysis. The organism was 10 µm long and 3 µm in diameter, having >100 times the volume of Escherichia coli. It had a large 'nucleoid', consisting of naked DNA fibers, with a single nucleoid membrane and endosymbionts that resemble bacteria, but no mitochondria. Because this organism appears to be a life form distinct from both prokaryotes and eukaryotes but similar to eukaryotes, we named this unique microorganism the 'Myojin parakaryote' with the scientific name of Parakaryon myojinensis ('next to (eu)karyote from Myojin') after the discovery location and its intermediate morphology. The existence of this organism is an indication of a potential evolutionary path between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

For quite a few chromosomes more: the origin of eukaryotes…

The evolution of eukaryotes addresses an enigmatic question: what are the evolutionary advantages of having a nucleus? The nucleus is traditionally thought to act as protection for DNA, but eukaryotes are more fragile than bacteria. The compartmentalization of the eukaryotic cell might stem from invaginations of the plasma membrane, and I argue that this autogenous origin of the nucleus constituted a selective innovation caused by cellular constraints due to a large genome. The protoeukaryotic nucleus appears to be a physical and chemical solution to the problem of large amounts of DNA in the form of many linear chromosomes. The selective advantages of having a nuclear envelope are to house a large genome in a stabilized structure and to decouple gene translation from transcription. Supporting the karyogenic model, this new hypothesis opens an original perspective to help in understanding the very ancient origin of eukaryotes.

Potential key bases of ribosomal RNA to kingdom-specific spectra of antibiotic susceptibility and the possible archaeal origin of eukaryotes

In support of the hypothesis of the endosymbiotic origin of eukaryotes, much evidence has been found to support the idea that some organelles of eukaryotic cells originated from bacterial ancestors. Less attention has been paid to the identity of the host cell, although some biochemical and molecular genetic properties shared by archaea and eukaryotes have been documented. Through comparing 507 taxa of 16S-18S rDNA and 347 taxa of 23S-28S rDNA, we found that archaea and eukaryotes share twenty-six nucleotides signatures in ribosomal DNA. These signatures exist in all living eukaryotic organisms, whether protist, green plant, fungus, or animal. This evidence explicitly supports the archaeal origin of eukaryotes. In the ribosomal RNA, besides A2058 in Escherichia coli vs. G2400 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, there still exist other twenties of sites, in which the bases are kingdom-specific. Some of these sites concentrate in the peptidyl transferase centre (PTC) of the 23S-28S rRNA. The results suggest potential key sites to explain the kingdom-specific spectra of drug resistance of ribosomes.

The first eukaryote cell: an unfinished history of contestation

The eukaryote cell is one of the most radical innovations in the history of life, and the circumstances of its emergence are still deeply contested. This paper will outline the recent history of attempts to reveal these origins, with special attention to the argumentative strategies used to support claims about the first eukaryote cell. I will focus on two general models of eukaryogenesis: the phagotrophy model and the syntrophy model. As their labels indicate, they are based on claims about metabolic relationships. The first foregrounds the ability to consume other organisms; the second the ability to enter into symbiotic metabolic arrangements. More importantly, however, the first model argues for the autogenous or self-generated origins of the eukaryote cell, and the second for its exogenous or externally generated origins. Framing cell evolution this way leads each model to assert different priorities in regard to cell-biological versus molecular evidence, cellular versus environmental influences, plausibility versus evolutionary probability, and irreducibility versus the continuity of cell types. My examination of these issues will conclude with broader reflections on the implications of eukaryogenesis studies for a philosophical understanding of scientific contestation.

Origin of the cell nucleus, mitosis and sex: roles of intracellular coevolution

BACKGROUND

The transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes was the most radical change in cell organisation since life began, with the largest ever burst of gene duplication and novelty. According to the coevolutionary theory of eukaryote origins, the fundamental innovations were the concerted origins of the endomembrane system and cytoskeleton, subsequently recruited to form the cell nucleus and coevolving mitotic apparatus, with numerous genetic eukaryotic novelties inevitable consequences of this compartmentation and novel DNA segregation mechanism. Physical and mutational mechanisms of origin of the nucleus are seldom considered beyond the long-standing assumption that it involved wrapping pre-existing endomembranes around chromatin. Discussions on the origin of sex typically overlook its association with protozoan entry into dormant walled cysts and the likely simultaneous coevolutionary, not sequential, origin of mitosis and meiosis.

RESULTS

I elucidate nuclear and mitotic coevolution, explaining the origins of dicer and small centromeric RNAs for positionally controlling centromeric heterochromatin, and how 27 major features of the cell nucleus evolved in four logical stages, making both mechanisms and selective advantages explicit: two initial stages (origin of 30 nm chromatin fibres, enabling DNA compaction; and firmer attachment of endomembranes to heterochromatin) protected DNA and nascent RNA from shearing by novel molecular motors mediating vesicle transport, division, and cytoplasmic motility. Then octagonal nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) arguably evolved from COPII coated vesicle proteins trapped in clumps by Ran GTPase-mediated cisternal fusion that generated the fenestrated nuclear envelope, preventing lethal complete cisternal fusion, and allowing passive protein and RNA exchange. Finally, plugging NPC lumens by an FG-nucleoporin meshwork and adopting karyopherins for nucleocytoplasmic exchange conferred compartmentation advantages. These successive changes took place in naked growing cells, probably as indirect consequences of the origin of phagotrophy. The first eukaryote had 1-2 cilia and also walled resting cysts; I outline how encystation may have promoted the origin of meiotic sex. I also explain why many alternative ideas are inadequate.

CONCLUSION

Nuclear pore complexes are evolutionary chimaeras of endomembrane- and mitosis-related chromatin-associated proteins. The keys to understanding eukaryogenesis are a proper phylogenetic context and understanding organelle coevolution: how innovations in one cell component caused repercussions on others.

Predation and eukaryote cell origins: a coevolutionary perspective

Cells are of only two kinds: bacteria, with DNA segregated by surface membrane motors, dating back approximately 3.5Gy; and eukaryotes, which evolved from bacteria, possibly as recently as 800-850My ago. The last common ancestor of eukaryotes was a sexual phagotrophic protozoan with mitochondria, one or two centrioles and cilia. Conversion of bacteria (=prokaryotes) into a eukaryote involved approximately 60 major innovations. Numerous contradictory ideas about eukaryogenesis fail to explain fundamental features of eukaryotic cell biology or conflict with phylogeny. Data are best explained by the intracellular coevolutionary theory, with three basic tenets: (1) the eukaryotic cytoskeleton and endomembrane system originated through cooperatively enabling the evolution of phagotrophy; (2) phagocytosis internalised DNA-membrane attachments, unavoidably disrupting bacterial division; recovery entailed the evolution of the nucleus and mitotic cycle; (3) the symbiogenetic origin of mitochondria immediately followed the perfection of phagotrophy and intracellular digestion, contributing greater energy efficiency and group II introns as precursors of spliceosomal introns. Eukaryotes plus their archaebacterial sisters form the clade neomura, which evolved from a radically modified derivative of an actinobacterial posibacterium that had replaced the ancestral eubacterial murein peptidoglycan by N-linked glycoproteins, radically modified its DNA-handling enzymes, and evolved cotranslational protein secretion, but not the isoprenoid-ether lipids of archaebacteria. I focus on this phylogenetic background and on explaining how in response to novel phagotrophic selective pressures and ensuing genome internalisation this prekaryote evolved efficient digestion of prey proteins by retrotranslocation and 26S proteasomes, then internal digestion by phagocytosis, lysosomes, and peroxisomes, and eukaryotic vesicle trafficking and intracellular compartmentation.

Are histones, tubulin, and actin derived from a common ancestral protein?

Histones and the cytoskeletal components tubulin and actin all act as thermal ratchets, using the energy present in Brownian motion to do work. All three also bind to nucleotides. Here we suggest that histones, tubulin, and actin derive from a common ancestral protein. There is some sequence similarity between histone 2A and the bacterial tubulin homologue FtsZ. Histones and actin also share some sequence similarity in the nucleotides and at phosphate-binding sites. Thus, actin and tubulin may also be related, although this is not obvious from sequence analysis. Indeed, actin and tubulin are closely functionally related and cooperate in many cellular processes. Interestingly, recent advances in nanotechnology suggest that thermal ratchets may be able to impart lifelike properties; thus, the evolution of the ancestral histone, tubulin, and actin thermal ratchet may have been crucial in the development of complexity in living organisms.

Archaebacteria (Archaea) and the origin of the eukaryotic nucleus

The eukaryotic nucleus is a unique structure. Because it lacks an obvious homologue or precursor among prokaryotes, ideas about its evolutionary origin are diverse. Current attempts to derive the nuclear membrane focus on invaginations of the plasma membrane in a prokaryote, endosymbiosis of an archaebacterium within a eubacterial host, or the origin of a genuinely new membrane system following the origin of mitochondria in an archaebacterial host. Recent reports point to ways in which different ideas regarding the origin of the nucleus might someday be discriminated.

Are linker histones (histone H1) dispensable for survival?

In the multicelled filamentous ascomycete Ascolobus immersus, the single copy gene for histone H1 can be silenced by methylation in the process known as methylation-induced premeiotically (MIP). The results of a recent paper using this unique system(1) have shown that histone H1 silencing results in an enhanced DNA accessibility to nucleases and an increase in the overall extent of DNA methylation. Interestingly, while none of these effects appear to decrease the immediate viability of this fungus, silencing of histone H1 results in a significant decrease in its overall life span. These results suggest that while linker histones may be dispensable for the relatively short life span of an individual cell, they are most likely indispensable for survival of higher eukaryote organisms.

Modulation of chromatin folding by histone acetylation

A homogeneous oligonucleosome complex was prepared by reconstitution of highly hyperacetylated histone octamers onto a linear DNA template consisting of 12 tandemly arranged 208-base pair fragments of the 5 S rRNA gene from the sea urchin Lytechinus variegatus. The ionic strength-dependent folding of this oligonucleosome assembly was monitored by sedimentation velocity and electron microscopy. Both types of analysis indicate that under ionic conditions resembling those found in the physiological range and in the absence of histone H1, the acetylated oligonucleosome complexes remain in an extended conformation in contrast to their nonacetylated counterparts. The implications of this finding in the context of a multistate model of chromatin folding (Hansen, J. C., and Ausio, J. (1992) TIBS 197, 187-191) as well as its biological relevance are discussed.

Introns: evolution and function

The debate continues on the issue of whether nuclear introns were present in eukaryotic protein-coding genes from the beginning (introns-early) or invaded them later in evolution (introns-late). Recent studies concerning the location of introns with respect to gene and protein structure have been interpreted as providing strong support for both positions, but the weight of argument is clearly moving in favour of the latter. Consistent with this, there is now good evidence that introns can function as transposable elements, and that nuclear introns derived from self-splicing group II introns, which then evolved in partnership with the spliceosome. This was only made possible by the separation of transcription and translation. If introns did colonize eukaryotic genes after their divergence from prokaryotes, the original question as to the evolutionary forces that have seen these sequences flourish in the higher organisms, and their significance in eukaryotic biology, is again thrown open. I suggest that introns, once established in eukaryotic genomes, might have explored new genetic space and acquired functions which provided a positive pressure for their expansion. I further suggest that there are now two types of information produced by eukaryotic genes--mRNA and iRNA--and that this was a critical step in the development of multicellular organisms.

Kingdom protozoa and its 18 phyla

The demarcation of protist kingdoms is reviewed, a complete revised classification down to the level of subclass is provided for the kingdoms Protozoa, Archezoa, and Chromista, and the phylogenetic basis of the revised classification is outlined. Removal of Archezoa because of their ancestral absence of mitochondria, peroxisomes, and Golgi dictyosomes makes the kingdom Protozoa much more homogeneous: they all either have mitochondria and peroxisomes or have secondarily lost them. Predominantly phagotrophic, Protozoa are distinguished from the mainly photosynthetic kingdom Chromista (Chlorarachniophyta, Cryptista, Heterokonta, and Haptophyta) by the absence of epiciliary retronemes (rigid thrust-reversing tubular ciliary hairs) and by the lack of two additional membranes outside their chloroplast envelopes. The kingdom Protozoa has two subkingdoms: Adictyozoa, without Golgi dictyosomes, containing only the phylum Percolozoa (flagellates and amoeboflagellates); and Dictyozoa, made up of 17 phyla with Golgi dictyosomes. Dictyozoa are divided into two branches: (i) Parabasalia, a single phylum with hydrogenosomes and 70S ribosomes but no mitochondria, Golgi dictyosomes associated with striated roots, and a kinetid of four or five cilia; and (ii) Bikonta (16 unicellular or plasmodial phyla with mitochondria and bikinetids and in which Golgi dictyosomes are not associated with striated ciliary roots), which are divided into two infrakingdoms: Euglenozoa (flagellates with discoid mitochondrial cristae and trans-splicing of miniexons for all nuclear genes) and Neozoa (15 phyla of more advanced protozoa with tubular or flat [usually nondiscoid] mitochondrial cristae and cis-spliced spliceosomal introns). Neozoa are divided into seven parvkingdoms: (i) Ciliomyxa (three predominantly ciliated phyla with tubular mitochondrial cristae but no cortical alveoli, i.e., Opalozoa [flagellates with tubular cristae], Mycetozoa [slime molds], and Choanozoa [choanoflagellates, with flattened cristae]); (ii) Alveolata (three phyla with cortical alveoli and tubular mitochondrial cristae, i.e., Dinozoa [Dinoflagellata and Protalveolata], Apicomplexa, and Ciliophora); (iii) Neosarcodina (phyla Rhizopoda [lobose and filose amoebae] and Reticulosa [foraminifera; reticulopodial amoebae], usually with tubular cristae); (iv) Actinopoda (two phyla with axopodia: Heliozoa and Radiozoa [Radiolaria, Acantharia]); (v) Entamoebia (a single phylum of amoebae with no mitochondria, peroxisomes, hydrogenosomes, or cilia and with transient intranuclear centrosomes); (vi) Myxozoa (three endoparasitic phyla with multicellular spores, mitochondria, and no cilia: Myxosporidia, Haplosporidia, and Paramyxia); and (vii) Mesozoa (multicells with tubular mitochondrial cristae, included in Protozoa because, unlike animals, they lack collagenous connective tissue).

Stabilization of sea urchin flagellar microtubules by histone H1

Complex microtubule assemblies are essential components of eukaryotic cilia and flagella. They are extremely stable and are not affected by agents that normally induce polymer disassembly. The molecular basis of this microtubular stability is unknown, and it is not related to any feature of the constitutive tubulin. In sea urchin sperm flagella, axonemal microtubules are found to be stabilized by a protein identical to histone H1, a result that defines a new role for this histone and provides evidence for a concerted evolution of chromatin and microtubular structures.

Archamoebae: the ancestral eukaryotes?

The archezoan phylum Archamoebae Cavalier-Smith, 1983 is here modified by adding a new order Phreatamoebida (presently containing only Phreatamoeba) and removing the family Entamoebidae. Entamoebidae are instead tentatively placed as a class Entamoebea together with the classes Heterolobosea, Percolomonadea and Pseudociliatea in the new protozoan phylum Percolozoa Cavalier-Smith, 1991. Thus emended the phylum Archamoebae is more homogeneous; it is more distinguished from the other two phyla of the primitively amitochondrial kingdom and superkingdom Archezoa (i.e. Metamonada and Microsporidia) by having kinetids with only a single flagellum and basal body and a flagellar root consisting of a cone of evenly spaced microtubules. This unikont character of the archamoebae suggests that they may be ancestral to the tetrakont Metamonada, from which the non-flagellate Microsporidia possibly evolved. Higher eukaryotes (superkingdom Metakaryota) probably evolved from a tetrakont metamonad by the symbiotic origin of mitochondria and peroxisomes. If so, the Archamoebae are the most primitive extant phylum of eukaryotes; if molecular phylogenetic studies confirm this idea, Archamoebae will deserve intensive study, which could reveal much about the origin of the eukaryote condition and also establish what is truly universal among eukaryotes. Archamoebae, like other Archezoa, lack mitochondria and peroxisomes and have no obvious Golgi dictyosomes. Their evolutionary significance is discussed and a detailed classification is presented in which the two earlier classes are merged into a single one: Pelobiontea Page, 1976 stat. nov., containing two orders Mastigamoebida Frenzel, 1892 (Syn. Rhizo-Flagellata Kent, 1880 non Rhizomastigida auct.) (including Mastigamoeba, Mastigina, Mastigella, Pelomyxa and probably a few other genera, which have one or more flagella or cilia (motile or immotile, 9 + 2 or otherwise) in the amoeboid trophic phase), and Phreatamoebida ord. nov. (including only Phreatamoeba in the new family Phreatamoebidae, which has alternating phases of non-flagellate amoebae and uniflagellate cells). Mastigamoebida are divided into three families: Mastigamoebidae Goldschmidt, 1907; Mastigellidae fam. nov.; Pelomyxidae Schulze, 1877. Archamoebae may be uni- or multi-nucleate and either gut parasites or (more usually) free-living in soil, freshwater, or marine habitats. Some can form cysts that would probably fossilize; the earliest (1450 My old) smooth-walled fossil cells large enough to be probable eukaryotes might therefore be archamoebal cysts.