Dr. Nayak is my mentor, and such an inspiration to work with every day. I'm so glad she's getting to share all she knows about Archaea through iBiology! They're absolutely fascinating organisms.
Great video. Amazing topic and awesome communicator. I sure hope Dr. Nayak is writing a book, since I'd love to read more about our incredible archaean ancestors.
The first video I watched in this channel was about spore formation some five years ago and since then have been visiting this channel and have subscribed to it. This is truly wonderful channel which office lectures from world's top scientists for free. Absolutely love your work. Keep it up.
Congratulations, you've really raised the bar on the iBiology videos. Excellent presentation, excellent artwork, it was a real pleasure to watch. I've enjoyed iBiology for years, this stands out as a real piece of art!
Wow! I was looking for greater understanding of archaea because of methane bloom in my gut. Although this didn't really help me, it is SO interesting! So glad I ran across this very well articulated video! Thank you!
Hello Dr Nayak. When I was an undergraduate at Indiana University, I got to work with Dr Tom Brock and spent a summer in Yellowstone. At the time we were working on Thermus aquaticus and the archaia sulfalobus. A few years later I worked with Dr Laurie Bogorad at Harvard. I was able to show that some of the ribosomal proteins of the chloroplast were encoded by the nucleus in Chlamydomonas. How cool is that? It shows that some of the genes encoded by chloroplast DNA likely got moved to nuclear DNA.
What an intriguing presentation! Makes me want to dive deeper into learning about the tree of life (": Thank you so much for imparting these information with us!
Reading Nick Lane’s “Power, Sex,and Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life” (2005). A quick check in the index revealed no entry for “Asgards” It’s great to find a video to upgrade the book.
hello, I am Rudolf from Germany, a (almost) retired medical doctor; my special interests is focus on the mitochondrial, because knowledge about these organelles leads to a much deeper understanding of diseases including cancer. Today I wonder so much, that biologists don´t talk much about the endosymbiosis- theory of Lynn Margulis. Isn´t it true, that billion years ago a archea and a bacteria "yoint together" and the result was a completely new domain called the eucaryot cell? What hints you to suggest that? Te ancestor of the eucyaryots was both the archea and the bacteria and not either or nor! Thanks for the video, I love to get so much information as possible to understand the implications in my field (medicine).
I think we’re still locked into the vertical heredity phylogeny model of “the tree of life.” Rather than declaring that the nuclear DNA is king like we have in the past, I believe the paradigm is changing to account more for the effects of other parts of the cell. I have termed this, along with various other heredity-controlling mechanisms such as maternal effect RNAs and regulatory patterns such as gene drives and imprinting, “soft-genetics.” The fact that this new tree presented in the video classifies eukaryotes as descended from archaea despite the fact that we rely on prokaryotic mitochondria (complete with the 16s rather than the 18s rRNA gene) is another example of the nuclear DNA-favoring bias because it’s essentially saying that what eukaryotes *really* are is the cell except for the mitochondria and the mitochondria are just accidental, peripheral, satellite things. In fact, they are necessary for most eukaryotic cells and almost all eukaryotic organisms.
Cytosolic ribosomes are in character derived from archaea and are nuclear-encoded. iirc even NLS-like sequences seem to be present in Archaea. But in terms of evolutionary relatedness both genomes are given acknowkedgent. Mitochondrial DNA is a major source of delineating patterns in population genetics. However it's maybe not so good for determining whether bats are closer to primates or rodents.
I recommend work: An excavate root for the eukaryote tree of life (2023). It is possible that there was endosymbiosis of delta/gamma-proteobacteria before endosymbiosis of alpha-proteobacteria (ancestors of mitochondria).
Very interesting talk, finally got to know a lot about this ignored group of organisms, we dont usually find a lot of info regarding methanogenic archae. Her energy and excitement is clearly evident in the talk, a passionate scientist, am sure we all could learn a lot :) Thanks ibiology, for this one.
It’s interesting why this “endo” engulfing event doesn’t still happen everyday today and give rise to different genetic lineages of mitochondrion continually.
This step is actually considered a "major transition" in (astro) biology. A high intelleigent species must have gone past these major transitions, to be succesfull and alive. The first one is the arising of molecules, that can store information, replicate and perform molecular tasks, like RNA. The next step is the emergence of a cell and the next one is probably the eternal symbioses of two cells, like all eukarytic cells do with mitochondria. All these steps (and there are more to come, like becomming multicellular and transition from water to land...) are rare, even in astronomical time units. So far we only know of two successful endosymbioses, mitochindra in eukaryotes and chloroplasts in plants. Probably it happens like a handful of times per 1 Biollion years, but these cases must be 1st survive to pass this trait into a whole population of offsprings and 2nd be discovered by humans. One potential endosymbioses however it right now in its evolution. Rizzobiaceae, bacteria that live in roots, are fixating Nitrogen from the air and make it useable for plant. We have a ridiculusly high amount of Nitrogen in the air, but actually no plant, that can use it. Plants use it always from soil. Some plants however, are in a symbiosis with these kind of bacteria and have the benefit from indirectly have access to atmospheric nitrogen. In a few million years some of these bacteria probably will lose some genes and wont be able to live without the plant and vice versa, then we have a similar relationship just on a higher scale.
@@patldennis It is the context from which I learned the term "Major Transition". For biological history the understanding of major transitions is important, but in astro biology this knowledge has even practical use today. This concept is used for some solutions of the Fermi Paradoxon. Sometimes it is also exchangeable with "Great Filter". In astro biology and terms of the fermi paradoxon we are probably alone as a high intelligent species in the so far obvsered universe, because we got past such a great filter. Some of the great filters are technology releated, but the earliest ones are biological ones, like the here described major transitions. If the emergence of a biological cell is a great filter (it really seems to be that complex and rare), then it would somehow explain why there are no microbial alien species on other planets, while there is at the same time chemistry at work (we can detect also microbial life with telescopes, since in early stages microbial life dominates the whole planet and can release gasses as byproducts of their metabolisms, which drastically change their host planets atmosphere, like it was back then on earth the case). I personally prefer other solutions to the fermi paradoxon, but they all include the incredibly rare chance of the major transition events as part of their explanation.
@@scicommlab hi!!!! I particularly liked the the illustrations 0:58-1:12 and 2:12-3:28. What was the program you all used to make those? Are the sourced from a 3rd party or does someone at iBiology make them?
Very Interesting, it calls for some questions, like how to Archaea divide? If we go from these 3 domains to 2 domains, do we include the Archaea with the Eukarya?
Pieter - we suggest you look into the research of Buzz Baum at University College London. His group is asking about the evolutionary origins of archaea cell division. And regarding the "new" 2-domain tree, evidence now suggests that eukarya branch from within archaea, so eukaryotes would be included with the archaeal domain.
I assume it's all accurate, but it isn't very clear. If Archaea were identified by being radically different to all other forms of life, because the ribosomal RNA was completely different, then this implies to me that the ribosomal RNA of Eukaryotes is similar to that of Bacteria, or at least closer than to that of Archaea. If so, then there's some competition between which DNA elements are closest between Eukaryotes vs Bacteria/Archaea. OK, so there are some signature proteins that are shared with Archaea, but if Eukaryotic ribosomal RNA is closer to Bacteria, I'd have thought this implies close common ancestry - it's one of the most fundamental aspects of living cells, at lot more fundamental than 'engulfing tentacles'. How come Archaea gave rise to Eukaryotes, but the basic machinery of protein synthesis somehow magically switched in Eukaryotes from Archaea-like to Bacteria-like? Seems very unlikely.
Thanks for this question! When Carl Woese performed his sequencing studies in the 1970s, he found that the ribosomal RNA gene was as different between archaea and bacteria as between bacteria and eukaryotes. In fact, his work suggested that archaea and eukarya were more closely related to each other than either were to bacteria. The video doesn't specifically state this, but the tree displayed at 5:05 indicates that archaea and eukarya are clustered more closely to each other than either are to bacteria.
do we know that the bacterial branch DIDN'T lead to archea? i mean if we're sayin archea was an early ancestor of eykaryotes, why couldn't bacteria be an ancestor of archea?
Great question! Genetic studies suggest that bacteria and archaea share a common ancestor, but diverged from each other into two distinct lineages many millions of years ago.
@@scicommlab Not more like … billions? I mean, we have perfectly differentiated multicellular life 600 my ago, during the Ediacaran era. The split between those most basic monocellular lifeforms should have happened much before, or am I on the wrong path?
@@stefanhensel8611 many millions or a few billion. We don't know the exact classification of the oldest fossils (microbial stromatolites). We just know they look like structures modern cyanobacteria make and that they are 3.5 billion years old
Actually, hundreds of billions of them. More like an archaean hyper-China, and you are president Xi, who in a sense controls the whole system but has to rely on everything working reasonably well on the most basic level.
Sorry but your tree of life is incorrect. Archaea and bacteria are 2 domains that co evolved from life's origin by employing different membrane chemicals on the basis of availability. Their biochemistry has co evolved in a spectacular example of convergent evolution mixed with some lateral gene transfer and finally endosymbiosis to produce the eukaryotes.
Thank you to all who joined in for our Premiere! Would love to hear your thoughts below.
Looking forward to the premiere tomorrow!
I thought it was live session we cam ask questions
IS THERE A GOOD AND RECENT MICROBIOLOGY BOOK ON ARCHEA?
Dr. Nayak is my mentor, and such an inspiration to work with every day. I'm so glad she's getting to share all she knows about Archaea through iBiology! They're absolutely fascinating organisms.
Blake Downing :)
So damn interesting & the way Dipti explained everything was so good, Thank you 🤗
I love this stuff, it's so fascinating...good video!
Great video. Amazing topic and awesome communicator. I sure hope Dr. Nayak is writing a book, since I'd love to read more about our incredible archaean ancestors.
The first video I watched in this channel was about spore formation some five years ago and since then have been visiting this channel and have subscribed to it. This is truly wonderful channel which office lectures from world's top scientists for free. Absolutely love your work. Keep it up.
Thank you for your lovely feedback and for your support over the past five years!
Dr. Dipti, you are an excellent presenter. I hope you continue researching as well as presenting nuanced topics in biology!
Just Mind-blowing explanation by Dr. Nayak and just fascinating video editing. JUST LOVING IT!
Two domain sounds interesting....it's interesting. Thank you iBiology.
Definitely. The idea that eukaryotes belong in the same “domain” as archaea is a little mind-bending.
Congratulations, you've really raised the bar on the iBiology videos. Excellent presentation, excellent artwork, it was a real pleasure to watch. I've enjoyed iBiology for years, this stands out as a real piece of art!
Wow! I was looking for greater understanding of archaea because of methane bloom in my gut. Although this didn't really help me, it is SO interesting! So glad I ran across this very well articulated video! Thank you!
Very timely and interesting -- thank you
I have waited over a week for this! Thank you TH-cam algorithm.
I wish they could just teach like this in school! So easy to understand!
They can. Howver, Most (U.S.) HS biology teachers are unwilling or unable to to competently teach about evolution
Hello Dr Nayak. When I was an undergraduate at Indiana University, I got to work with Dr Tom Brock and spent a summer in Yellowstone. At the time we were working on Thermus aquaticus and the archaia sulfalobus. A few years later I worked with Dr Laurie Bogorad at Harvard. I was able to show that some of the ribosomal proteins of the chloroplast were encoded by the nucleus in Chlamydomonas. How cool is that? It shows that some of the genes encoded by chloroplast DNA likely got moved to nuclear DNA.
What an intriguing presentation! Makes me want to dive deeper into learning about the tree of life (": Thank you so much for imparting these information with us!
It was very informative and clear. I want to hear more about how Archea differ from eukaryotes
It's valuable information for science students. I want more about it so please start more classes about evolutionary science. Thank you very much
Reading Nick Lane’s “Power, Sex,and Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life” (2005). A quick check in the index revealed no entry for “Asgards” It’s great to find a video to upgrade the book.
wonderful! Thank your for sharing this knowledge with us
Good to listen to you. Sharing this with my sister who has done a lot of work on sequencing DNA.
Excellent explanation easily understood. Here beginneth our . ..
hello, I am Rudolf from Germany, a (almost) retired medical doctor; my special interests is focus on the mitochondrial, because knowledge about these organelles leads to a much deeper understanding of diseases including cancer. Today I wonder so much, that biologists don´t talk much about the endosymbiosis- theory of Lynn Margulis. Isn´t it true, that billion years ago a archea and a bacteria "yoint together" and the result was a completely new domain called the eucaryot cell? What hints you to suggest that? Te ancestor of the eucyaryots was both the archea and the bacteria and not either or nor!
Thanks for the video, I love to get so much information as possible to understand the implications in my field (medicine).
Thank you for uploading this video. I find it to be very beneficial because my next class is going to be about eubacteria and archaea.
Such a fascinating talk, I would love to see more of this topic and origins of life!
looking forward!
I think we’re still locked into the vertical heredity phylogeny model of “the tree of life.” Rather than declaring that the nuclear DNA is king like we have in the past, I believe the paradigm is changing to account more for the effects of other parts of the cell. I have termed this, along with various other heredity-controlling mechanisms such as maternal effect RNAs and regulatory patterns such as gene drives and imprinting, “soft-genetics.” The fact that this new tree presented in the video classifies eukaryotes as descended from archaea despite the fact that we rely on prokaryotic mitochondria (complete with the 16s rather than the 18s rRNA gene) is another example of the nuclear DNA-favoring bias because it’s essentially saying that what eukaryotes *really* are is the cell except for the mitochondria and the mitochondria are just accidental, peripheral, satellite things. In fact, they are necessary for most eukaryotic cells and almost all eukaryotic organisms.
Cytosolic ribosomes are in character derived from archaea and are nuclear-encoded. iirc even NLS-like sequences seem to be present in Archaea. But in terms of evolutionary relatedness both genomes are given acknowkedgent. Mitochondrial DNA is a major source of delineating patterns in population genetics. However it's maybe not so good for determining whether bats are closer to primates or rodents.
Nice video, I love the 16S ribosomal rna depiction in 3:43, it reminds me of the Goodsell pdb style.
Woahooo looking forward to this
Great video.
I recommend work: An excavate root for the eukaryote tree of life (2023).
It is possible that there was endosymbiosis of delta/gamma-proteobacteria before endosymbiosis of alpha-proteobacteria (ancestors of mitochondria).
Very interesting talk, finally got to know a lot about this ignored group of organisms, we dont usually find a lot of info regarding methanogenic archae. Her energy and excitement is clearly evident in the talk, a passionate scientist, am sure we all could learn a lot :) Thanks ibiology, for this one.
Well explained.
Thank you for such an interesting video!
mind-blown!
we are all shared Asgardian ancestry!
Fantastic presentation. Thanks!
Great lecture ... love it
I like this format. But if the presenter wants to finger-point to something, the longstanding iBiology format allows that more readily.
Interesting and very informative.Thank u mam👍
so, we are three in the neighborhood
Thanks!
It’s interesting why this “endo” engulfing event doesn’t still happen everyday today and give rise to different genetic lineages of mitochondrion continually.
This step is actually considered a "major transition" in (astro) biology. A high intelleigent species must have gone past these major transitions, to be succesfull and alive. The first one is the arising of molecules, that can store information, replicate and perform molecular tasks, like RNA. The next step is the emergence of a cell and the next one is probably the eternal symbioses of two cells, like all eukarytic cells do with mitochondria. All these steps (and there are more to come, like becomming multicellular and transition from water to land...) are rare, even in astronomical time units. So far we only know of two successful endosymbioses, mitochindra in eukaryotes and chloroplasts in plants. Probably it happens like a handful of times per 1 Biollion years, but these cases must be 1st survive to pass this trait into a whole population of offsprings and 2nd be discovered by humans.
One potential endosymbioses however it right now in its evolution. Rizzobiaceae, bacteria that live in roots, are fixating Nitrogen from the air and make it useable for plant. We have a ridiculusly high amount of Nitrogen in the air, but actually no plant, that can use it. Plants use it always from soil. Some plants however, are in a symbiosis with these kind of bacteria and have the benefit from indirectly have access to atmospheric nitrogen. In a few million years some of these bacteria probably will lose some genes and wont be able to live without the plant and vice versa, then we have a similar relationship just on a higher scale.
@@TMtheScratcher Wow. If you are a teacher, you must be an awesome one.
@@stefanhensel8611 Thanks, actually I'm writing my Master Thesis, but it would be really great becoming a teaching professor one day :)
@@TMtheScratcher why did you implicate astrobiology?
@@patldennis It is the context from which I learned the term "Major Transition".
For biological history the understanding of major transitions is important, but in astro biology this knowledge has even practical use today.
This concept is used for some solutions of the Fermi Paradoxon. Sometimes it is also exchangeable with "Great Filter". In astro biology and terms of the fermi paradoxon we are probably alone as a high intelligent species in the so far obvsered universe, because we got past such a great filter. Some of the great filters are technology releated, but the earliest ones are biological ones, like the here described major transitions. If the emergence of a biological cell is a great filter (it really seems to be that complex and rare), then it would somehow explain why there are no microbial alien species on other planets, while there is at the same time chemistry at work (we can detect also microbial life with telescopes, since in early stages microbial life dominates the whole planet and can release gasses as byproducts of their metabolisms, which drastically change their host planets atmosphere, like it was back then on earth the case).
I personally prefer other solutions to the fermi paradoxon, but they all include the incredibly rare chance of the major transition events as part of their explanation.
This is mind blowing!
really appreciated the illustrations!
Hi Pete!
@@scicommlab hi!!!! I particularly liked the the illustrations 0:58-1:12 and 2:12-3:28. What was the program you all used to make those? Are the sourced from a 3rd party or does someone at iBiology make them?
@@petercohen1745 we have a small team of graphics folks that made the illustrations and animated them.
Wonderful narration
Very Interesting, it calls for some questions, like how to Archaea divide? If we go from these 3 domains to 2 domains, do we include the Archaea with the Eukarya?
Pieter - we suggest you look into the research of Buzz Baum at University College London. His group is asking about the evolutionary origins of archaea cell division. And regarding the "new" 2-domain tree, evidence now suggests that eukarya branch from within archaea, so eukaryotes would be included with the archaeal domain.
Thank you.
Awesome
These talks are amazing✨️
Great lecture!
Cool!
Thanks 🙏
IS THERE A GOOD AND RECENT MICROBIOLOGY BOOK ON ARCHEA?
I assume it's all accurate, but it isn't very clear. If Archaea were identified by being radically different to all other forms of life, because the ribosomal RNA was completely different, then this implies to me that the ribosomal RNA of Eukaryotes is similar to that of Bacteria, or at least closer than to that of Archaea. If so, then there's some competition between which DNA elements are closest between Eukaryotes vs Bacteria/Archaea. OK, so there are some signature proteins that are shared with Archaea, but if Eukaryotic ribosomal RNA is closer to Bacteria, I'd have thought this implies close common ancestry - it's one of the most fundamental aspects of living cells, at lot more fundamental than 'engulfing tentacles'. How come Archaea gave rise to Eukaryotes, but the basic machinery of protein synthesis somehow magically switched in Eukaryotes from Archaea-like to Bacteria-like? Seems very unlikely.
Good point!
Thanks for this question! When Carl Woese performed his sequencing studies in the 1970s, he found that the ribosomal RNA gene was as different between archaea and bacteria as between bacteria and eukaryotes. In fact, his work suggested that archaea and eukarya were more closely related to each other than either were to bacteria. The video doesn't specifically state this, but the tree displayed at 5:05 indicates that archaea and eukarya are clustered more closely to each other than either are to bacteria.
She is so damn good at explaining things 🙏🙏🙏
Wooooooow! Why didn't we learn this at school?!
It was discovered 60 years ago -. Ignored for decades
thanks!
Thank you so much 😍
Awesome.
do we know that the bacterial branch DIDN'T lead to archea? i mean if we're sayin archea was an early ancestor of eykaryotes, why couldn't bacteria be an ancestor of archea?
Great question! Genetic studies suggest that bacteria and archaea share a common ancestor, but diverged from each other into two distinct lineages many millions of years ago.
@@scicommlab Not more like … billions? I mean, we have perfectly differentiated multicellular life 600 my ago, during the Ediacaran era. The split between those most basic monocellular lifeforms should have happened much before, or am I on the wrong path?
@@stefanhensel8611 many millions or a few billion. We don't know the exact classification of the oldest fossils (microbial stromatolites). We just know they look like structures modern cyanobacteria make and that they are 3.5 billion years old
@@scicommlab the common ancestor being human. Escape Hypothesis
I'm very inspiring😊
We are Eukarya, we are Asgards, we are Archaea.
What proteins ESPs consist?
Some cytoskeletal proteins, and proteins involved in protein synthesis and turnover are considered ESPs.
Thx
Greta, let's hunt down some Norse gods and stop climate change! 😁
Seriously, a great presentation that taught me something new. Thank you!
So we all are a archean and a bacteria working together
Actually, hundreds of billions of them. More like an archaean hyper-China, and you are president Xi, who in a sense controls the whole system but has to rely on everything working reasonably well on the most basic level.
😃
Understanding the value of hydrogen and its role in diverse life
Earth is alive just as you are. Until ppl understand what life is you will fail
Sorry but your tree of life is incorrect. Archaea and bacteria are 2 domains that co evolved from life's origin by employing different membrane chemicals on the basis of availability. Their biochemistry has co evolved in a spectacular example of convergent evolution mixed with some lateral gene transfer and finally endosymbiosis to produce the eukaryotes.
But the 16s rRNA is not found in eukaryotes 😯
Loki is 3 nanometres tall and has no brain.
Scientific fact.
EDIT: micrometres. At 3 nanometres, he'd probably be a virus.
No no no
I guess she's saying _"archaea",_ but I kept hearing *Ikea,* the furniture store.