Cited by 51Protist diversity and phylogenyPhotosynthetic Processes and MechanismsChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Plastid establishment did not require a chlamydial partner

Open access
Domman, Daryl, Horn, Matthias, Embley, T. Martin, Williams, Tom A.·2015·Nature Communications

Abstract

Primary plastids descend from the cyanobacterial endosymbiont of an ancient eukaryotic host, but the initial selective drivers that stabilized the association between these two cells are still unclear. One hypothesis that has achieved recent prominence suggests that the first role of the cyanobiont was in energy provision for a host cell whose reserves were being depleted by an intracellular chlamydial pathogen. A pivotal claim is that it was chlamydial proteins themselves that converted otherwise unusable cyanobacterial metabolites into host energy stores. We test this hypothesis by investigating the origins of the key enzymes using sophisticated phylogenetics. Here we show a mosaic origin for the relevant pathway combining genes with host, cyanobacterial or bacterial ancestry, but we detect no strong case for Chlamydiae to host transfer under the best-fitting models. Our conclusion is that there is no compelling evidence from gene trees that Chlamydiae played any role in establishing the primary plastid endosymbiosis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms7421

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • CAT/CATGTR offers improved resilience to long-branch attraction artefacts and is almost always better fitting than standard site-homogeneous amino acid substitution models.

    “CAT/CATGTR offers improved resilience to long-branch attraction artefacts (LBA)22 and is almost always better fitting than standard site-homogeneous amino acid substitution models (e.g. WAG)8–10,23–29.”

    From Evidence for sponges as sister to all other animals from partitioned phylogenomics with mixture models and recoding (2021) · cites this paper as [23]

    In Results and Discussion (‘Simple methods do not adequately model sequence evolution’), the paper reports that the single-matrix LG model inadequately fit all five gene alignments tested; it also describes CAT-family models as more resistant to long-branch attraction than single-matrix models. But ‘High levels of compositional heterogeneity in GlgA’ reports that CAT+GTR itself fit the GlgA data poorly. The paper does not establish the broader claim that CAT/CATGTR is almost always better fitting than standard site-homogeneous models. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Amino acid recoding has long been considered a powerful strategy to reduce compositional heterogeneity and saturation in the data.

    “Amino acid recoding has long been considered as a powerful strategy to reduce compositional heterogeneity and saturation in the data [7, 13-15, 31-36]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Domman, D., Horn, M., Embley, T. M., & Williams, T. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Williams, Tom A.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2015-03-11
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
6421-6421
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987876349
Cited by
51
References
48
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Phaidra (Universität Wien) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (045404, 268701, 089803)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (281633, 268701)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protist diversity and phylogeny
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Photosynthetic Processes and Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
endosymbiosis, cyanobacterial endosymbiont, Chlamydiae, host transfer, gene transfer, gene tree discordance, metabolic pathway evolution
MeSH terms
Cyanobacteria, Bacterial Proteins, Bayes Theorem, Chlamydia, Biological Evolution, Phylogeny, Symbiosis, Plastids, Gene Transfer, Horizontal, Membrane Transport Proteins, Cyanophora, Carbohydrate Metabolism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review