Talk:Prokaryote

mitochondria
First paragraph "Prokaryotes do not have a nucleus, mitochondria..." Second paragraph of Relationship to Eukaryotes "...two organelles found in eukaryotic cells contain mitochondria similar in size and makeup to those found in prokaryotes" Contradictory, and needs cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.168.59 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

bacteria/archea
Could somebody please describe difference between Bacteria and Archea ?

See those pages.

Lots of differences. Genetically archaea resemble Eukaryotes more than they do Bacteria. The composition of archaeal cell membranes is also different as well; while Bacteria and Eukaryotes possess a fatty acid chain ester-linked to a glycerol moiety, archaea possess an isoprenoid chain ether-linked to a glycerol moiety. More importantly than that, the stereochemistry of the glycerol moiety in archaea is different form the stereochemistry of the glycerol moiety in eukaryotes and bacteria. Archaea have some unique metabolic pathways, the most important of which is probably methanogenesis (biological production of methane). And the rest you can easily find in the Wiki page about Archaea and Bacteria. Januoaxe (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Empire/Superkingdom/Domain
It does seem that Procarya or similar is the taxon for this Empire, with Eucarya or similar being the other. As we're not using the three-domain system, can't it be placed in the domain box? 132.205.45.110 16:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note in other languages, there is a prokaryota domain.

The other languages have made a minor error, then. Domains specifically refer to Woese's groups. It would be ok to use an empire Prokaryota, if we wanted to commit to the 2-empire system instead. I wouldn't mind, but I'm not sure we should. Domains are questionable but much more popular, and Prokaryota is often broken down differently. All in all, none of the ranks above kingdom are really standard and they don't add very much information, beyond giving a controversial placement. As such, I would suggest omitting them in cases like this, unless someone has strong opposition. Josh

The box is still a useful navigation guide, just omitting the Domain rank would seem to be sufficient? The two kingdoms listed are Wikipedia recognized as such... 132.205.15.43 00:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the top-level pages are sufficiently numerous to make boxes that useful. After all, there are only two prokaryotic kingdoms. If there were an standard system, that would be one thing, but in its absence I don't see why we need to worry about including ranks above kingdom. Most people who know about prokaryotes know about bacteria and archaea already. Also keep in mind categories already provide an alternate, somewhat more flexible navigation system. Josh

Eukaryotes does have a Domain taxobox though, so what is the status of the empire/domain debate? 132.205.15.43 05:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Eu
 * http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Main/Classification/71612.htm
 * http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Main/Classification/..%5CDetails%5C71612.htm
 * Pro
 * http://www.californiabiota.com/cabiota/prokaryota.htm
 * http://www.bioproject.info/particular_biology/superkingdom_prokaryotae.html

Three domains
Someone removed the note that the split of the prokaryotes is controversial. Well, a majority of microbiologists do accept the split, but it's based mainly on rRNA trees which are known to be unreliable, and at least until very recently a few other relationships have been argued for - e.g. bacteria paraphyletic, archaea paraphyletic, cyanobacteria (cyanoprokaryotes) a separate group. If the line should be removed, we should at least give a reference explaining why the criticisms no longer stand. Josh There is no questioning that Woese's is now the dominant and widely accepted paradigm, which is not to say that there is no place for a discussion of criticisms of his scheme. But that discussion rightly belongs on the three-domain system page. The current statement is pretty NPOV &mdash; it just say "This arrangement", which seems to leave the door cracked for other taxonomic systems. Fawcett5 04:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that this page deserves a section about the controversy around the use of "prokaryotes". This term has no taxonomic meaning. It groups bacteria and archaea because they do not have a nucleus, and not because there is something that actually connects both. If there were a grouping higher than Domain, it should rather be a group that encompasses Archaea and Eukarya, since this two groups are more closely related. There is, indeed, a paper that suggests precisely this, written by Patrick Forterre (Forterre, P. (2015). The universal tree of life: an update. Frontiers in Microbiology, 6. http://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00717). In the paper the author suggests that a group that includes Eukaryotes and Archaea should be named Arkarya, since this makes taxonomic sense. In any case, I might include a section about this controversy here.Januoaxe (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

First "sentence" of 'relationship to eukaryotes' is
NOT a sentence in 11/1/06 version.Regards,Rich 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples
Can someone please tell me some examples of Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes?? Thanks.

Some Prokaryotes: Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Anabaena spp. Some Eukaryotes: Amoeba proteus, Euglena gracilis, Pichia pastoris, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Neurospora crassa, Solanum tuberosum, Taraxacum officinale, Homo sapiens including Plantsurfer (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Membranous organelles contradiction
In the relationship to eukaryotes section it is stated that "[prokaryotes] lack membrane-bound cell compartments such as vacuoles", whereas in the structure section "Membranous organelles are known in some groups of prokaryotes, such as vacuoles". Personally I don't know of any such prokaryotes, but I'm not an expert. If this is true it certainly needs a citation, as well as a specific example. If not, it should be removed Odmrob 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

some of the examples of prokaryotes are fungi and blue-green algae in eukaryotes are kingdom animalia,plantae,protozoa, and ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.4.2 (talk) 11:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The example used is the Planctomycetes, which are bacteria. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they lack organelles isn't really true I'd say. Many of these organisms have protein-membrane-enclosed spaces that are functionally the same as lipid-membrane-enclosed spaces, that is, they're act as organelles. Carboxysomes in cyanobacateria are an example. It wasn't possible to see them before, hence people said that these microorganisms didn't have subcompartments. Now we know more. See Cannon GC, Bradburne CE, Aldrich HC, Baker SH, Heinhorst S, Shively JM (2001) Microcompartments in Prokaryotes: Carboxysomes and Related Polyhedra. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67, 5351–5361. 128.174.127.111 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It would also be worthwhile to include this article in the discussion: as it seems to fairly definitively settle the question. (Bproth (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

Structure - Recent research needs referencing
"Recent research shows that procaryotes actually do have cytoskeletons albeit more primitive than that of eucaryotes" (Not a direct quote): Whoever wtote this, can you please reference it? What newer research are we talking about here? If I can't check the credibility, then I can't use it! Madskile 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Multicellular
In the article Cyanobacteria, this reference is used: The abstract does not call this an "organism" though.

Is a multicellular bacterium a multicellular organism? — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Polyphyletic?
Mentioning the status of this group in the cladistic system seems like a good idea. As far as I understand the group procaryotes are a polyphyletic group that is roughly defined as "everything living that is not eukaryotes". See the article on neomura.

boxed 11:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I believe, we should not be promoting the use of the word Prokaryote at all. The phylogeny of the earliest lineages is certainly controversial, but this could be mentioned in the article. It seems to me to be perpetuating sloppy and misleading taxonomy to go on calling prokaryotes a group. Michaplot (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Giant prokaryote
I heard about giant prokaryote, but it`s difficult to understand, how their size is 80-600 micrometers (normal size is 1-2 micrometers). Does anybody know something about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.212.156 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unknown organism
Please have a look at Talk:Microorganism. Maybe you have an idea, qhat this organism could be? Please answer on Talk:Microorganism.

Thanks a lot, Saippuakauppias ⇄ 16:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Big discovery for biogenic magnetite
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/46/17595.full —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuKu (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mycorrhiza only part of the problem
I received the following e-mail in response to a question I posted. "Karl A. Wilson [,] Faculty (Professor), Biological Sciences, S.U.N.Y. at Binghamton (Binghamton University)" "Some early reports suggested that mycorrhizal fungi could fix atmospheric nitrogen and pass this on to the associated plant. However, it is now generally accepted that this is not true. It appears that the biological fixation of diatomic nitrogen is only carried out by prokaryotes, e.g. Rhizobium, Acetobacter, and various cyanobacteria.  These prokaryotes in turn can associate with mycorrhizal fungi, which in turn associate with the host plant, passing the fixed nitrogen along this chain.  Because of this complex rhizosphere, engineering rapeseed (canola, Brassica napus) with a reduce nitrogen fertilizer requirement would really involve the engineering of the entire [Brassica – mycorrhizal fungus – prokaryotic nitrogen fixer] system to produce the appropriate interactions.  This is certainly at this point not an easy problem, requiring a better knowledge of these interaction [s] than we presently have." I'll put this in the Discussion for Mycorrhiza as well. Simesa (talk) 07:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See also Nitrogen fixation, which says the same thing far less simply. Simesa (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 131.111.185.4, 18 October 2010
Please provide a reliable source for, or remove, the claim "..mitochondria being replaced by Mesosomes, which is now where respiration takes place'. The Mesosome article on wikipedia contradicts this.

131.111.185.4 (talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks, Stickee (talk)  01:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction needed in Section 1. Relationship to eukaryotes
In section 1, Relationship to eukaryotes, there is a line that reads
 * Also the size of Ribosomes in prokaryotes is smaller than that in eukaryotes, which is now where respiration takes place.

This makes no sense. Ribosomes are the site of protein synthesis. Respiration in bacteria takes place in multiple locations including reactions in the cytoplasm and electron transport cascades in the cytoplasmic membrane. And finally, ribosome does not need to be capitalized.

I would recommend that this line be changed to:
 * Also, prokaryotic ribosomes, the cytoplasmic structure responsible for protein synthesis, are smaller than those of eukaryotic cells.

I am not certain what the best source for this information would be since this is basic biology that would be learned in freshman biology.

Thank you, Atrusso.phd (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Plus, the text says that ribosomes are "now" where respiration takes place. Even if they were the respiration site, this would hardly be something that had been changed recently -- more like 3.5 billion years ago. So it is not something that happens "now". I mean, it does, but there is nothing that warrants special notice about "now". There has been no recent change! SrAtoz (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was also puzzled by that sentence, and I took a stab at fixing it. I removed the part about respiration, but I wasn't sure how to add in a description of their function in protein synthesis, since the sentence was describing differences between eukaryotes and prokaryotes and so it seemed more important to describe the differences between the ribosomes than to discuss their function.  I suspect that the "respiration" line might be a fragment from an earlier edit?  I'm thinking that perhaps someone had put in a description of mitochondrial and chloroplast ribosomes, and then maybe another editor deleted part of it?


 * I simply replaced the "respiration" part of the sentence with a mention that two organelles within eukaryotic cells have similar ribosomes to those in prokaryotic cells. I didn't name mitochondria and chloroplasts by name, since they're mentioned elsewhere in that paragraph, but obviously that could be added for clarity.  On the other hand, I can also see how it might be simpler to just have the sentence end after "smaller than that in eukaryotes" since bringing the organelles into the picture could just make things more confusing.  I certainly wouldn't argue if anyone wanted to just end the sentence there.


 * I used the same source cited in the ribosome article where the similarities between the ribosomes of mitochondria and chloroplasts are compared to that in prokaryotes, so hopefully that should be adequate. I'm fairly confident of the validity and verifiability of it, so if that source isn't adequate, there's probably plenty of others. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Evolution section
I'm not loving the Evolution section. It makes it sound like there's debate about which came first, eukaryotes vs prokaryotes, when in reality the fossil record is pretty unambiguous, including at least one timeline citation we have on here. I'm going to get the book out for citation #23; it better make it good. 129.137.237.70 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt
 * Well, there are three different sources cited for the hypothesis that prokaryotes evolved from eukaryotes, and one for all three domains arising more or less simultaneously from one gene pool. So, it does look like there is some debate. I think the question here is whether the proper weight has been accorded those arguments. I don't have access to the cited sources, and have no feel for recent trends in thinking on the subject, so I'll probably stay out of any discussion about weight. -- Donald Albury 11:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't gotten the textbook yet, but I followed the other two citations; it's literally only one paragraph (hate reviews...) but they subsequently cite documents and authors that explain it sufficiently well. http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/243/eukaryotic-origins-revolution-in-the-classification-of-life & a PhD named Hyman Hartman that brings up some salient considerations, and an ancestor referred to as a "Chronocyte" which I'd just as soon not have to be the one to try to explain here on wikipedia. ("Considering bacteria and archaea don't perform endocytosis, how was this symbiosis event to have occurred?" ...touche' sir.) 129.137.237.70 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Ubiquitousnewt


 * And the Astrobiology article points on to Were Bacteria the First Forms of Life on Earth?, which does explicitly offer the alternative of prokaryotes evolving from eukaryotes. Very interesting. But, as I said, I'm not sure how much weight to give these arguments in the article. -- Donald Albury 22:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And after reading Transitional forms between the three domains of life and evolutionary implications, I'm thinking it might be best to just state that perceived problems in explaining the relationships among the three domain have led to a proliferation of alternate hypotheses, and cite some examples. -- Donald Albury 00:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In the news: Missing Link in the Evolution of Complex Cells Discovered; Complex Archaea that bridge the gap between prokaryotes and eukaryotes in Nature. May be too early to incorporate? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Needs Updating
This page is based upon too old studies. It needs to be updated acondingly with the accurate knowlodge. The term prokaryote doesn't make sense anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androlivei (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no rush. Please wait for others to discuss. What exactly is the problem, and what does your source say that means this article needs to be extensively modified? Johnuniq (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the info, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

taxonomy
Not clear what the phrase ". . . rather than biological classification (Taxonomy) of species" is attempting to say. It is misleading to imply, as it does, that the distinction is not taxonomic. The distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is, of course, a fundamental taxonomic dichotomy. Obviously it is not a distinction at the level of species, but way higher in the hierarchy. So what point is being made? I say we delete this. Plantsurfer (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. prokaryotes (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Plantsurfer, do you also suggest to remove the article category "Obsolete taxonomic groups"? Another further reading, The Prokaryote-Eukaryote Dichotomy: Meanings and Mythology http://mmbr.asm.org/content/69/2/292.full prokaryotes (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that, but it would be my preference. Not that I am advocating the validity of prokaryotes as a group - in view of data to the effect that it is paraphyletic it can now presumably only be thought of as a grade of organisation. The article does not explain that adequately, and it is sufficiently important that it ought to be introduced in the lead. Plantsurfer (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Average prokaryote cell- en.svg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Average prokaryote cell- en.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 10, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-09-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article was improved considerably in past few weeks, if anything needs further attention, please point it out, thanks. --prokaryotes (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Prokaryote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061117183040/http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk:80/SS/Lowe_J/group/PDF/annrev2006.pdf to http://www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/SS/Lowe_J/group/PDF/annrev2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding the term "primitive"
"bacterial microcompartments, which are thought to act as primitive organelles"

This is a stylistic issue; in decades past it was popular to refer to simpler organisms that are less like humans as being "primitive." That's human ego at work. But the fact that prokaryotes continue to this day indicates that they are just as modern and just as viable as any other living thing. Some simple "organisms" such as newly-mutated viruses are exceedingly simple yet there is nothing definitively primitive about them. I would use terminology something like "simpler structures that perform functions similar to organelles" rather than "primitive organelles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowatee (talk • contribs) 05:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Multicellular prokaryotes
An editor has just removed the phrase (a prokaryote is) "... sometimes a multi-cellular organism, ..." from the lead, with the edit summary, "Several sources and well-documented research suggest there is no such thing as mult-cellular prokaryotes". However, I see some sources that speak of multi-cellular prokaryotes.
 * Multicellular life cycle of magnetotactic prokaryotes.
 * 'Candidatus Magnetoglobus multicellularis', a multicellular, magnetotactic prokaryote from a hypersaline environment.
 * Nonmagnetotactic Multicellular Prokaryotes from Low-saline, Nonmarine Aquatic Environments and Their Unusual Negative Phtotactic Behavior.
 * Deciphering unusual uncultured magnetotactic multicellular prokaryotes through genomics.

I have no expertise in biology, but it seems to me that the article should mention what some scientists call "multicellular prokaryotes". - Donald Albury 01:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

animation
The included animation - "3D animation of a prokaryotic cell that shows all the elements that compose it" - shows nothing at all that isn't better shown by the existing non-animated diagrams and drawings. In fact, it shows far less. I don't see what it adds to the article...? Anastrophe (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Extremely confusing sentence in introductory paragraph
The first paragraph reads as follows:

"A prokaryote is a unicellular organism that lacks a membrane-bound nucleus, mitochondria, or any other membrane-bound organelle. The word prokaryote comes from the Greek πρό (pro, 'before') and κάρυον (karyon, 'nut' or 'kernel'). Prokaryotes are divided into two domains, Archaea and Bacteria. Species with nuclei and organelles are placed in the third domain, Eukaryota. Prokaryotes are asexual, reproducing without fusion of gametes. The first living organisms are thought to have been prokaryotes. The term prokaryote however is now used informally to refer to bacteria and archaea, because in the late 1970s Carl Woese determined that bacteria and archaea were less closely related than previously thought."

The third sentence tell us unambiguously that "Prokaryotes are divided into two domains, Archaea and Bacteria."

But then the last (fifth) sentence tells us that this usage is informal. It tries to explain this informal usage by saying it is "because" Carl Woese (whoever that may be!) made a certain determination that has no obvious relationship to what it is supposed to explain.

I hope someone with a knowledge of the subject and of the needs of encyclopedia articles can fix this. It is particularly confusing when the introductory paragraph defines the subject of the article, but a later sentence weakens that very definition.

Oh, and by the way, it's not appropriate to discuss the etymology of the word before it is even defined.50.205.142.50 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding section on archaea
This article seems to have relevant information on bacteria but little information on archaea. How could we change it to provide more information on this domain? Kkher (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't think actinonin belongs here
Actinonin is just one anti-bacterial among a great many of them. Don't think this belongs in the See Also here. (This edit.) Invasive Spices (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

History Section
Was there a reason that hyperlinks were not added to directly reference The concept of a bacterium or Titres et Travaux Scientifiques?

These would be significant keys for the history section for people to directly reference. Tqh8 (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * "Bacteria" is linked in the lead (first) paragraph. Linking it again so soon in the article would be considered overlinking. Wikipedia does not have an article about Titres Et Travaux Scientifiques, and so there is nothing to wikilink to. If you are aware of a copy of the book on-line (unless it is at a site hosting a copyright-violating copy of the book), we can link to that in the citation for the sentence mentioning the book. Donald Albury 13:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)