Recently, the group of McBride reported a stunning observation regarding peroxisome biogenesis: newly born peroxisomes are hybrids of mitochondrial and ER-derived pre-peroxisomes. What was stunning? Studies performed with the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae had convincingly shown that peroxisomes are ER-derived, without indications for mitochondrial involvement. However, the recent finding using fibroblasts dovetails nicely with a mechanism inferred to be driving the eukaryotic invention of peroxisomes: reduction of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation associated with fatty acid oxidation. This not only explains the (...) mitochondrial involvement, but also its apparent absence in yeast. The latest results allow a reconstruction of the evolution of the yeast's highly derived metabolism and its limitations as a model organism in this instance. As I review here, peroxisomes are eukaryotic inventions reflecting mutual host endosymbiont adaptations: this is predicted by symbiogenetic theory, which states that the defining eukaryotic characteristics evolved as a result of mutual adaptations of two merging prokaryotes. See also the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/HtyKhQ3DSxg Eukaryotic peroxisomes illustrate effects of symbiogenesis, following the non-phagocytotic merger of an archaeon and a bacterium. Internal ROS formation upon fatty acid oxidation was reduced by the invention of peroxisomes for extra-mitochondrial FA oxidation. Both peroxisomal membranes and their oldest enzymes seem ultimately derived from the pre-mitochondrion. (shrink)

Of two contending models for eukaryotic evolution the “archezoan“ has an amitochondriate eukaryote take up an endosymbiont, while “symbiogenesis“ states that an Archaeon became a eukaryote as the result of this uptake. If so, organelle formation resulting from new engulfments is simplified by the primordial symbiogenesis, and less informative regarding the bacterium‐to‐mitochondrion conversion. Gradualist archezoan visions still permeate evolutionary thinking, but are much less likely than symbiogenesis. Genuine amitochondriate eukaryotes have never been found and rapid, explosive adaptive periods characteristic of (...) symbiogenetic models explain this. Mitochondrial proteomes, encoded by genes of “eukaryotic origin“ not easily linked to host or endosymbiont, can be understood in light of rapid adjustments to new evolutionary pressures. Symbiogenesis allows “expensive” eukaryotic inventions via efficient ATP generation by nascent mitochondria. However, efficient ATP production equals enhanced toxic internal ROS formation. The synergistic combination of these two driving forces gave rise to the rapid evolution of eukaryotes.Also watch the Video Abstract. (shrink)