Talk:Viral eukaryogenesis

Untitled
Abstract of cited article; "In the theory of viral eukaryogenesis I propose here, the eukaryotic nucleus evolved from a complex DNA virus. It is proposed that the virus established a persistent presence in the cytoplasm of a methanogenic mycoplasma and evolved into the eukaryotic nucleus by acquiring a set of essential genes from the host genome and eventually usurping its role. It is proposed that several characteristic features of the eukaryotic nucleus derive from its viral ancestry. These include mRNA capping, linear chromosomes, and separation of transcription from translation. In the model, phagocytosis and other membrane fusion-based processes are derived from viral membrane fusion processes and evolved in concert with the nucleus. The coevolution of phagocytosis and the nucleus rendered much of the host archaeal genome redundant since the protoeukaryote could obtain raw materials and energy by engulfing bacterial syntrophs/prey. This redundancy allowed loss of the archaeal chromosome, generating an organism with eukaryotic features. The evolution of phagocytosis allowed the eukaryotes to be the first organisms to occupy the niche of predator."

To this layman reader, it is unclear whether the host procaryotic cell was a mycoplasma or an Archaeal cell. Is there an expert in the house? archola 03:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Googling "methanogenic mycoplasma" brings up a 1981 article (Rose & Pirt, ) which refers to "methanogenic mycoplasma". The genera mentioned were "Anaeroplasma" and "Methanoplasma". To put it loosely, Methanoplasma is today considered an archaeon (Thermoplasmata) and Anaeroplasma is classified as a mycoplasma (Anaeroplasmatales)--Quisqualis (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

= Expansion? =

I propose the following paragraph be temporarily included in the article in order to elucidate on the concept behind this theory -- until someone better qualified happens upon it.


 * Certainly a number of precepts in the theory hold true. For instance, a helical virus with a bilipid envelope bears a distinct resemblance to a highly simplified cellular nucleus (ie: a DNA chromosome encapsulated within a lipid membrane). To consider the concept in a logical manner, a large DNA virus would be seen to take control of a bacterial or archaeal cell and, instead of replicating and destroying the host cell, it would remain within the cell. With the virus in control of the host cell's molecular machenery it would effectively become a 'nucleus' of sorts. Through the processes of mitosis and cytokinesis, the virus would thus hijack the entire cell - an extremely favourable way to ensure it's survival.

I am by no means an expert, but this topic interests me, so I've read a fair amount about it. --Xanthine 15:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert either (that's why I added the "expert needed" tag), but up until now I've been the only editor on this page. I say, why not? Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting subject. Here's hoping someone can further expand on it. --Xanthine 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this hypothesis philosophically intriguing, but, based on this article, scientifically weak. Any research to cite? How about criticisms? I am not a biolologist, and am unfamiliar with the relevant journals.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review javascript
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La  Grigory Deepdelver  18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
 * If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
 * This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with . At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add .[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Accepted?
It would be nice to know how widely accepted this theory is. cyclosarin (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If this turns out to be true,would that mean that humanity's ultimate ancestor was a virus? Now THERE'S something to make the fundies spaz out. 203.110.205.211 (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely one of the theories of there, I would not say it is the most accepted. There are quite many theories for eukaryogenesis which sometimes only differ in the actual symbiotic partners. The viral eukaryogenesis hypothesis fits the so called fusion hypotheses, which envision the emergence of eukaryotes as a fusion between archaea, bacteria and (here) virus. --Kunadam (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Structure and style
This article is very repetitive and unstructured, and much of the writing is editorialised. The content needs structuring into sections and the tone needs to be more considered. Fences &amp;  Windows  07:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Desperately in need of a "Criticisms" section
This article is somewhat unbalanced and entirely accepting of the hypothesis. The argument in favor would be strengthened if the shortcomings were enumerated. There must be a few cogent articles "against" out there. This article sounds entirely too credulous. Anyone knowledgeable, please bring on the criticisms.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)